Whether a notification of invalidation of a construction business license is a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Article 6 (4) of the Construction Business Act, Article 13 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act provides that a license shall lose its effect on a fixed basis without any separate notice when the term of validity expires for three years without renewal of a construction business license. Notification of the validity of a license by an administrative agency is merely an act of notifying the legal effect of the renewal of a construction business license, not a change in the legal status of the other party by such notification, but merely an act of notifying the legal effect of the renewal of a construction business license. Thus, the above notification of invalidation does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation. Article 10 (1) of the same Act merely provides that a contractor shall consider the contractor, etc. as a constructor until the completion of the construction project so that the contractor may not suffer any unexpected loss or disadvantage due to the invalidation of a construction business license, etc., and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ground for

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 6 and 10 of the Construction Business Act

English Geologicality of Limited Liability Company

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(State) The Defendant’s rejection of an application for renewal of a construction business license made on June 24, 1989 by the Plaintiff and the rejection of an application made on June 21 of the same year shall be revoked.

(Preliminary) confirm that each such disposition is invalid.

1. On June 21, 1989, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the action against the rejection of a request for renewal of a construction business license is sought to nullify the revocation as the primary claim and the confirmation of invalidity as the preliminary claim on the ground that the disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Defendant’s rejection of the request for renewal of a construction business license was made against the Defendant.

First of all, we examine whether the defendant's rejection of the application for renewal of the construction business license of the plaintiff's assertion was made. The testimony of the witness Gochik's witness who corresponds to this point is not believed, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge this point by the Gap's evidence 5-1 through 10, Gap's evidence 6-1 through 7, Gap's evidence 7, Gap's evidence 8-1 through 5, and Gap's evidence 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, according to the witness Park Jong-hee's testimony, the representative director of the plaintiff's company Kim Young-young's company's representative director and Kim Young-hee's urban development employee around June 21, 1989 without presenting all documents necessary for renewal of the license under the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act, but it can not be viewed that there was a legitimate application for renewal of the construction business license.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims premised on the defendant's disposition of refusing to accept the plaintiff's application for renewal of construction business license are unlawful since they are not recognized as the existence of a disposition under the Administrative Litigation Act, which is the object of appeal litigation.

2. Determination as to the action against the invalidation of a license for a specialized construction business

The plaintiff is a company that has obtained a construction business license with its type of business. The plaintiff did not file an application for renewal by June 11, 1989, which is the term of validity of the license. The defendant notified the plaintiff on June 24 of the same year that the license was invalidated because the plaintiff did not obtain a renewal of the construction business license under Article 6 (4) of the Construction Business Act, and notified the plaintiff that the construction business license and the construction business license pocket book will be returned to the city of Jeollabuk-do by June 30 of the same year, and there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that the term of validity of the above construction business license is expired provisionally on the sole basis of the expiration of the term of validity, and the license is finally effective only by the notification of invalidation, and thus, the above notification of invalidation constitutes a disposition under the Administrative Litigation Act, which is subject to appeal litigation, and seeks revocation as a preliminary claim and revocation of invalidation.

However, Article 6 (4) of the Construction Business Act provides that a construction business license shall be renewed every three years, and if not renewed, a license shall lose its effect. Article 13 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act provides that a person who intends to obtain a renewal of a construction business license pursuant to Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act shall submit to the Minister of Construction and Transportation an application for renewal and documents attached thereto not later than 60 days before the date of obtaining the construction business license or the date of obtaining the renewal of the license. Thus, if a construction business license has not been renewed and the three-year validity period has elapsed without being renewed, the license shall be interpreted as null and void without any separate notice. The defendant's notification to the plaintiff that the license has been invalidated as above does not change the legal status of the other party, but it shall be deemed that the notification of a simple concept that knows the legal effect of the renewal of the construction business license.

The plaintiff asserts that the above notification should be deemed an administrative disposition in light of Article 10 (1) of the Construction Business Act, but the above provision of the law provides that "a constructor or his/her general successor who has been subject to a disposition of business suspension or revocation of a license may execute construction works under a contract concluded before the disposition is made. The same shall also apply in cases where the license for construction business loses its effect." The purport of the above law is to allow a contractor to execute the construction works by deeming the probationary person, etc. as a constructor until the completion of the construction works in order to ensure that he/she does not suffer any unexpected loss or disadvantage due to the invalidation of the construction business license. Thus, the above notification of invalidation cannot be deemed as the ground for

Therefore, the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims, which are premised on the fact that the above notification of invalidation falls under the disposition of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is the object of an appeal litigation, shall be deemed unlawful.

3. If so, all of the plaintiff's lawsuits of this case are unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Full-chul (Presiding Judge)