(a) Whether a license for the building business by leasing a license pocketbook for a building engineer falls under the grounds for cancellation of license;

(b) In cases where a person obtained a license for the building business by pretending to meet the criteria for the license, but subsequently revoked, whether the reason for revocation is cured (negative)

(a) An act by a constructor to borrow a construction engineer's license pocketbook shall be the grounds for the suspension of business of the constructor, but where a construction engineer's license pocketbook is stated to be leased at the time of application for a construction engineer's license, and thus obtains a construction engineer's license by pretending to meet the standards for holding technical capability among the construction license standards

B. In the case of obtaining a construction business license by unlawful means, it constitutes a ground for revocation of the construction business license, which is based on the use of unlawful means, and it is not on the ground of failing to meet the licensing standards, so even if the license was revoked, it cannot be deemed that the above ground for revocation was cured.

Articles 37(2)9 and 38(1)5 of the Construction Business Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu238 delivered on December 23, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff applied for a license for the business of cutting down landscaping plants and landscaping facilities, there is no actual employment of the non-party who is an engineer in the field of landscaping, but merely leased a construction engineer's license only on the documents and led the plaintiff to work as if he were employed and employed on a regular basis. In light of the records, the court below was just in examining the evidence cooking process which was conducted through the recognition of the above facts, and there is no error of law

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Article 37 (2) (9) of the Construction Business Act, a constructor's act of lending a construction engineer's license pocketbook is defined as a reason for the suspension of business of a constructor. However, if a constructor obtains a construction business license by pretending that he/she satisfies the standards for technical capacity holding among the standards for the construction license by borrowing a construction engineer's license pocketbook at the time of application for a construction business license, it constitutes a reason for cancellation of the construction license under Article 38 (1) 5 of the Construction Business Act

The court below's decision to the same effect is just, and it is just that the construction engineer's license pocketbook lending is merely a ground for the suspension of business of the constructor, and the illegal means under Article 38 (1) 5 of the Construction Business Act means the illegal means other than the construction engineer's license lending. It is just a separate opinion that is not reasonable.

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

When obtaining a construction business license by improper means, it shall be revoked, and it is evident that there is no room for the licensing authority to choose whether to revoke it, in light of the proviso of Article 38 (1) of the Construction Business Act.

In addition, the above reasons for revocation of license are based on the use of unlawful means, and they are not on the grounds of falling short of the licensing standards, so even if the construction engineer newly employed the construction engineer as in the theory of lawsuit and supplemented the lack of the licensing standards at the time of the license, it cannot be deemed that the above reasons for revocation were cured.

All of the arguments on this issue are groundless.

4. 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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)