The meaning of "when he lends or unfairly uses a license, etc. or license pocketbook to a third party" under Article 38 (1) 8 of the former Building Business Act (Law No. 3501, Dec. 31, 1981).

"When a person lends or unfairly uses his license or license pocket book to another person" as one of the grounds for cancellation of a construction business license in Article 38 (1) 8 of the former Building Business Act (Law No. 3501, Dec. 31, 1981) refers to lending the license or license pocket book itself to another person or unfairly exercising it for its original purpose, and it does not include an act of allowing another person to receive or execute construction works by using his name or trade name.

Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (Act No. 3501 of December 31, 1981) and Article 52(1)5 of the Construction Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu354 Decided October 22, 1985, 86Nu63 Decided January 20, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu52 Decided April 28, 1987

Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu777 delivered on September 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

“When a person lends or unfairly uses his license or license pocket book to another person” as one of the grounds for cancellation of a construction business license in Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (Law No. 3501, Dec. 31, 1981) refers to lending the license or license pocket book itself to another person or unfairly exercising the license or license pocket book for its original purpose in light of the purport, etc. of Article 52(1)5 of the amended Construction Business Act, and it does not include an act of allowing another person to receive or execute construction works by using his name or trade name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu52, Apr. 28, 1987; 86Nu63, Jan. 20, 1987; 85Nu354, Oct. 22, 1985).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the facts acknowledged by the evidence, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff, a constructor, allowed the non-party, etc. to implement construction works using his trade name, and did not lend the plaintiff's construction license certificate or license pocketbook itself, and held that the disposition of cancellation of the construction business license of this case is unlawful on the ground that the above case cannot be deemed as a ground for cancellation of the

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence or the theory of lawsuit against the rules of evidence.

The issue is eventually groundless.

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

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)