meaning of the provision that a constructor succeeds to all the rights and duties of the constructor under Article 11(1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act.

In cases where a constructor prescribed in Article 11(1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act transfers his/her construction business, the purport that the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the constructor before he/she takes over the status of the constructor under this Act is that the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the constructor under the same Act, which is the transferor, and does not purport that the transferee succeeds to all the rights

Article 11(1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu609 Decided July 23, 1985

Plaintiff, Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Limited Partnership Korean Electrical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 85Na608 delivered on September 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 11 (1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act, when a construction business operator transfers his construction business, the transferee succeeds to the status of the construction business operator under this Act and all the rights and obligations of the construction business operator before transfer. However, in light of the fact that the same Act was enacted to prevent danger and injury and promote the sound development of the electrical construction business by ensuring that electrical construction works are executed safely and appropriately, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the construction business operator under the same Act (see Article 1 of the same Act). It does not mean that the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the construction business operator under the same Act, who is the transferor, or that the transferee comprehensively succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the general private law of the construction business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu609 delivered on July 23, 1985). In this view, the court below is justified in holding that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the premise that the Defendant succeeded to the obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff of the non-party company by taking over the electrical construction business from the non-party company

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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)