Choi Ho-jin (Attorney Cho Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

December 16, 1981

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s revocation of the license for construction business (Seoul 21-36, 22-27) against the Plaintiff as of April 14, 1981 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) On Apr. 14, 1981, the Defendant obtained the license of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes the ground for revocation of the license (the case where the Plaintiff obtained the license by illegal means) under Article 38(1)5 of the Construction Business Act on the ground that it constitutes the ground for revocation of license under Article 38(1)5 of the Construction Business Act (the case where the Plaintiff obtained the license by illegal means) and the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties.

(2) At the time of the application for the license of this case, the plaintiff's attorney first asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful, which was based on the premise that the above non-party 1 was a full-time employee of the plaintiff's business, and that the above non-party 1 was not a full-time employee, and that his house was not a full-time employee, but the construction engineer's license was obtained by borrowing his construction engineer's license pocket book, etc., but this constitutes a case of lending the construction engineer's license pocket book under Article 37 (2) 9 of the same Act and it does not constitute a ground for the suspension of business, but it constitutes a ground for the cancellation of the license under Article 38 (1) 5 of the same Act, and even if this constitutes a ground for the above license revocation, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful since it constitutes a ground for the cancellation of the license, and even if this constitutes a ground for the above license revocation, it constitutes a ground for the suspension of business as a ground for the above suspension of business.

(3) First, when the plaintiff applied for a license of this case, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 applied for a license of this case to the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 applied for a license of this case as a full-time engineer. Meanwhile, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 5 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 5 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 5 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

(4) Next, Article 38 (1) of the Construction Business Act provides that "the Minister of Construction and Transportation may revoke a construction business license in the case where a constructor falls under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That if a constructor falls under subparagraph 5...., the construction business license must be revoked," and subparagraph 5 of the above subparagraph provides that "if a construction business license is granted by illegal means, the construction business license shall be revoked." Thus, the construction business license shall be revoked if there is a ground falling under subparagraph 5 above, and there is no room for discretion in this case. The so-called "the above-called" of the plaintiff falls under subparagraph 5 above. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff's above argument on the premise that there is room for discretionary determination to the defendant is no need to further determine.

(5) Lastly, the plaintiff alleged that the disposition to revoke the license of this case was unlawful on the grounds that there was a defect in the hearing procedure that should be done prior to the revocation of the license of this case. Thus, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, when he intends to make a disposition under the provisions of Articles 37 through 39, shall hold a hearing for the constructor or construction engineer concerned in advance, and he may hear the opinions of the construction association or interested person, if necessary.

However, if a constructor or construction engineer concerned fails to comply with a hearing without any justifiable reason, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may hold a reasonable disposition without holding a hearing to revoke a construction business license, and the Minister shall hold a necessary hearing against the constructor to revoke the construction business license. According to the records of Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 8 (e.g., a receipt of mail), and the result of the plaintiff's examination (excluding the above-mentioned part), the plaintiff's request for a hearing from the defendant for attendance at around 11:00 on April 9, 1981, the plaintiff stated that the public official concerned is a construction engineer who is not full-time, and the construction engineer is not full-time, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation additionally holds one construction engineer, and there is no violation of the fact that the plaintiff prepared and submitted a statement (No. 7) that supplementation of defective matters as a supplementary holding prior to the revocation of the license, and thus, the defendant had made a legitimate disposition prior to the revocation of the license.

(6) If so, the defendant's revocation of the construction business license of this case is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff.

December 30, 1981

Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jae-chul