[1] Whether a disciplinary measure against a violation of administrative regulations may be imposed even if the violator does not have intention or negligence (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that, where a director of a construction company who is delegated with the comprehensive authority to obtain orders for construction works or conclude contracts for construction works commits a violation of a loan such as a construction business registration certificate under Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the company should be held liable for administrative responsibility even if the company was later aware of such violation

[1] Since sanctions against the violation of administrative laws are sanctions against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, barring special circumstances, such as where a failure to cause the violation is not caused due to the negligence of duties by the violator, it may be imposed even if there is no intention or negligence by the violator, barring special circumstances.

[2] The case holding that where a director of a construction company who is delegated with the comprehensive authority to conclude a contract for construction work or a contract for construction has committed a violation of a construction business registration certificate, etc. under Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 6112 of Jan. 12, 200), even if the company had been aware of such violation at the latest, administrative responsibilities should be imposed

[1] Articles 9(1), 21, and 83 subparag. 5 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 6112 of Jan. 12, 200) / [2] Articles 9(1), 21, and 83 subparag. 5 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 6112 of Jan. 12, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 79Nu251 delivered on May 13, 1980 (Gong1980, 12855), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu69 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 250), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14602 delivered on May 16, 197 (Gong197, 1784), Supreme Court Decision 98Du3532 delivered on December 28, 199 (Gong200, 413), Supreme Court Decision 98Du5702 delivered on May 26, 2000 (Gong200, 413)

Acheon Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ansan-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney Han Man-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu13746 delivered on May 14, 2002

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

1. The court below is just in finding facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the method of conducting ordinary litigation related to the orders of construction works by Nonparty 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff company, the reason why Nonparty 1 was the director of the plaintiff company, the reason why Nonparty 1 was in the name of the plaintiff company, the fact that Nonparty 1 was in the name of the plaintiff company, the fact that he was in the name of the plaintiff company, and the non-party 1 was in the name of the plaintiff company, and the fact that he forged documents related to the construction works in the name of the plaintiff company, and submitted them to the competent administrative agency upon receipt of the plaintiff company's construction license, etc., and the fact that the plaintiff company knew that he was in the name of the plaintiff company after the commencement of an investigation after the defendants filed a complaint against the non-party 2 et al. due

2. A. After recognizing the above facts, the court below held that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that, even if Nonparty 1 is in a position similar to or similar to the director of the plaintiff company and is engaged in the business of receiving a construction work, and he is in possession of the plaintiff company's seal impression, etc., if he allowed Nonparty 2 to use the plaintiff company's trade name in excess of his delegated scope of business to the plaintiff company and it exceeded his delegated scope of business, even if there is room to deem that the legal effect of the act of Nonparty 1 is against the plaintiff company, under the legal principles of expression agency, even if private law, the legal effect of the act of the non-party 1 is against the plaintiff company. However, in imposing sanctions on the violation of the administrative law as to the act of violation of the violation of the duty under the administrative law, the effect of the violation cannot be deemed to affect the plaintiff company. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party 1 permitted the mutual use of the plaintiff company's company's company's own non-party 2, the constructor.

B. However, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Sanction against violation of administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative law in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, a sanction may be imposed even if there is no intention or negligence on the part of the violator, barring special circumstances, such as where the violation is not attributable to the negligence of the duty of the violator (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Nu251 delivered on May 13, 1980; 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 200, etc.).

In this case, the non-party 1 is an employee of the plaintiff company and received remuneration from the plaintiff company while being allowed to use the title of director, and entered into a contract in the name of the plaintiff company directly accompanying the plaintiff company's seal impression, etc. with delegation of comprehensive authority on the contract of construction order or construction contract, etc., and later, the non-party 1 was registered as the director of the plaintiff company in the corporate register. Thus, even if the non-party 1 was registered as a director of the plaintiff company, the non-party 1 received a proposal from the non-party 2 and submitted it to the competent administrative agency by forging documents related to the construction work in the name of the plaintiff company. Even if the plaintiff company did not prevent the non-party 1's violation of Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, so long as the non-party 1 did not take an administrative responsibility against the non-party 1's act, it cannot be said that there is any justifiable reason for the plaintiff company's violation of Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on administrative sanctions due to violation of Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)