Whether "when a constructor lends his/her license or license pocketbook to a third party or unfairly uses it" under Article 38 (1) 8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984) where a constructor has another person execute construction works using his/her trade name (negative)

Where a constructor has another person execute construction works by using his trade name, he does not fall under “when he lends his license or license pocketbook to or uses it unfairly” under Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984).

Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu975 delivered on January 12, 198, 86Do2769 delivered on August 9, 198

Gyeongnam National Housing Corporation

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu297 delivered on April 14, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984) does not apply to "when a constructor lends his/her license or license pocketbook to, or uses it unfairly" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu975, Jan. 12, 1988; 86Do2769, Aug. 9, 198).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable. On the premise of other independent theory, it cannot be accepted since it criticizes that there was an error of law by not properly examining the judgment of the court below, or by misapprehending legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)