(a) Where the Act is amended after the act of violation of the Construction Business Act, the applicable Act at the time of administrative sanctions;

(b) Whether the act of allowing another person to contract or execute the construction work by using his name or trade name is included in the act of lending or unjust use of a license certificate or license pocketbook under Article 38 (1) 8 of the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501, Dec. 31, 1981);

A. If the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of Dec. 31, 1981) intends to impose administrative sanctions on lending of construction business licenses at the time of its enforcement, this Act shall enter into force on July 1, 1985, and the dispositions taken pursuant to the former provisions of this Act shall be governed by the former Construction Business Act, which was in force at the time of the relevant violation, unless otherwise provided for in the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3765 of December 31, 1984).

B. Of the acts of lending or unfair use of a license certificate or license pocketbook as stipulated in Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of Dec. 31, 1981), the acts of having another person receive or execute construction works by using his name or trade name do not include those acts.

A. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Addenda of the Construction Business Act (Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984); Article 38(1)8(b) of the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 52(1)5 of the Construction Business Act (Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984)

A. Supreme Court Decision 62Nu35 delivered on July 26, 1962; 82Nu1 delivered on December 28, 1982; 83Nu383 delivered on December 13, 1983; 85Nu354 delivered on October 22, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Hong-chul, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu791 delivered on December 18, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (if the supplemental appellate brief dated August 9, 1986 is not sufficient, to the extent it supplements the above grounds of appeal).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who was a co-representative of the plaintiff company, extended the name of construction business on six occasions on May 14, 1984, including (1) the non-party 1, who was a co-representative of the plaintiff company, extended 10,00,000 won from the non-party 2, who wants to directly construct the building ○○ building with a total floor area of 198.69 square meters above the 569 square meters above the site located at Seocheon-si ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) around May 14, 1984; (2) the non-party 3, a co-representative of the other co-representative of the plaintiff company, extended the plaintiff's construction business license to the plaintiff; (3) the non-party 1,500,000 won from the non-party 4, and (2) the non-party 2, 500,000 won, without any justifiable ground of the plaintiff 281.38

However, the Plaintiff’s above lending of construction business license is in force at the time of enforcement of the former Construction Business Act. Therefore, if it is intended to impose administrative sanctions on the ground of the violation, this Act shall enter into force on July 1, 1985, and this Act shall enter into force on the basis of the previous revised Construction Business Act (Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984). Paragraph (2) of this Act provides that dispositions conducted prior to the enforcement of this Act shall be deemed dispositions conducted pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and unless otherwise provided for in this Act, the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of Dec. 31, 1981) which was in force at the time of the violation shall be governed by Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act which provides for the grounds for cancellation of construction business license, which provides that “when the construction business license or license is unduly lent to or used by another person, the act or license holder shall not be included in the former Construction Business Act’s name or use of the license.

However, among the facts acknowledged by the court below, the judgment of the court is written in accordance with Eul evidence Nos. 4-2 (tentative order) which was issued by the court below as to the fact that the non-party 1, who was a joint representative director, lent the plaintiff company's construction business license. However, such fact finding is not indicated among the above summary order's entries, and even according to Gap evidence Nos. 11-1 and 7 which are bound to investigation records of the above summary order, the above non-party 1 can only use the plaintiff company's trade name and lend the construction business license to the non-party 2, and it cannot be viewed that the above summary order is insufficient to acknowledge the above lending of construction business license. (2) In addition, the non-party 3, who is a joint representative director, lent the construction business license over six times, and the above non-party 1's lending of construction business license cannot be viewed as the act of lending the plaintiff company's construction business license under the name of the plaintiff company.

In the end, the court below did not err in the misconception of facts, but did not apply the former Construction Business Act which was enforced at the time of the act, and did not apply the revised Construction Business Act Article 52 (1) 5 of the revised Construction Business Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable that the decision of the remaining grounds for appeal by the plaintiff is unnecessary.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)