01. The meaning of "loan or undue use of license or license pocket book" under Article 38 (1) 8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984)

In light of the purport of Article 52(1)5 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984), lending or unfair use of a license certificate or license pocket book under Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984), it means lending a license certificate or license pocket book itself to another person or unfairly exercising it outside of its original purpose, and it does not include cases where a constructor who runs a construction business permits another person who runs construction business to perform construction works

Article 38(1)8 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984) and Article 52(1)5 of the Construction Business Act

Hansung Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu702 delivered on April 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the construction business operator's license or license pocket book's loan or unfair use of the license pocket book under Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984) was unlawful since the construction business operator's license or license pocket book itself constitutes a ground for cancellation of construction business's license under Article 52 (1) 5 of the amended Construction Business Act and the construction business's license or license pocket book's license book's own loan or use of it in addition to the original purpose of the lease or use of it by the non-party 1 to the non-party 2,752 shall not be included in the cancellation of the construction business's license under Article 8 (1) 8 of the former Construction Business Act, since the above non-party 1 filed a report on Sep. 2, 1980 with the plaintiff and the non-party 2 shall not be included in the cancellation of the construction business's license.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)