Where the act of lending a construction business license pocketbook was deleted from the grounds for revocation due to the amendment of statutes, the revocation of the license under the former Act;

In the case of a change in the laws and regulations, the former laws and regulations are not the new laws and regulations after the change, but the former laws and regulations apply before the change, so if the Plaintiff, a constructor, leased a license pocketbook to the Nonparty on December 31, 1973, constitutes a ground for revocation of a construction business license under Article 38(1)8 of the Construction Business Act, which was enforced at the time of the change, then the Minister of Construction and Transportation should revoke the Plaintiff’s construction business license by applying Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act, even if the Plaintiff, a constructor, was later subject to the ground for revocation of a construction business license under Article 38(1)8 of

Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Nu35 Delivered on July 26, 1962

Attorney Kim Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu854 delivered on November 24, 1981

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where the law is amended, barring any explicit provision or special circumstance, it is a party member's case where the former law is applied, not a new law after the amendment, but a new law before the amendment (see Supreme Court Decision 62Nu35 delivered on July 26, 1962).

Therefore, on December 31, 1973, where the Plaintiff, a constructor, was awarded a contract for the construction of street access road to the national housing complex at the time of the order to the Nonparty on December 31, 1973, and if the lending of the license pocketbook constitutes a cause for cancellation of the construction business license under Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act which was enforced at the time of the lending of the license pocketbook, the above lending of the license pocketbook was amended by Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act as of the date of family source inquiry, and the Plaintiff’s lending of the license pocketbook did not constitute a cause for cancellation of the construction business license under Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall revoke the Plaintiff’s license by applying Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act, which was enforced at

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the law enforced at the time of the above license pocketbook lending act loses its validity due to the amendment of the law, and it was impossible to apply it at the time of the cancellation of the construction business license. The defendant's appeal is justified in this respect, and therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)