(a) Whether or not approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation is required for a merger between corporations which are constructors; and

(b) Whether a construction business license of the previous company is succeeded to the surviving company due to a merger of the company;

(c) Legal nature of the reissue of a construction business license and a construction business license pocketbook;

(d) Whether a disciplinary measure may be taken against the surviving company or the newly incorporated company for the reason of illegality of the merged company;

A. Article 13(1) of the Construction Business Act provides that where a juristic person which is a constructor and a juristic person which is not a constructor intend to merge, it shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and it seems that the merger between the constructors is unnecessary to obtain the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

B. In the event of a corporate merger, the rights and obligations of the merged company shall be deemed to be succeeded to the surviving company due to the merger, except where the transfer is not permitted by its nature, regardless of whether it is a private or public law relationship. Article 13(2) of the Construction Business Act provides that a license for the construction business of a corporation to be extinguished by the merger shall be transferred to the corporation established or surviving by the merger.

C. The re-issuance of a construction business license and a construction business license pocketbook is a case where the license, etc. is lost or worn out and becomes unusable, and the license and license pocketbook, such as transfer of the construction business license, are newly issued or replaced by a new license and license pocketbook with the same contents as the previous license and license pocketbook, due to its management problems. This is an administrative act that formally certifies it and gives public evidence to a specific fact that the construction business license is expected to obtain, and accordingly, maintains the previous license’s effect without any influence, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the previous license is invalidated and a new license is granted.

(d)the licensing authority may take sanctions against the surviving or newly incorporated company on its ground that all unlawful causes of the constructor before re-issuance of the licence and license pocket book are cured or that such unlawful causes cannot be deemed to be cured due to the lapse of a certain date. If there is an illegal cause to cancel the licence for the merged company which has a construction business license, the licensing authority may take sanctions against the remaining or newly incorporated company on its ground

(a) Article 13(1)(b) of the Construction Business Act; Article 13(2) of the Construction Business Act; Article 9(3)(d) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Business Act; Article 52(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Business Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Nu265 delivered on March 25, 1980 (Gong1980, 12814). D. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu658 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1660). Supreme Court Decision 86Nu203 Delivered on July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1133)

Shin Young Construction Corporation

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14908 delivered on May 27, 1993

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu15740 delivered on August 31, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 거시증거를 종합하여 원고는 포장공사업을 업종으로 하는 건설업면허를 가지고 있는 회사인데 1990.3.27. 토목건축공사업을 업종으로 하는 건설업면허(토목건축 제219호, 이하 이 사건 면허라 한다)를 가지고 있는 소외 재설공영주식회사(이하 재설공영이라 한다)를 흡수합병한 후 같은 해 7.18. 피고에게 이 사건 면허의 면허증 및 면허수첩을 분실하였다는 사유로 그 재교부를 신청하여 피고로부터 이를 재교부받은 사실, 피고는 1990.12.28. 원고에 대하여 위 재설공영이 1986년부터 1987년까지 사이에 소외 1에게 257회에 걸쳐 건설업면허를 대여하는 등 건설업법을 위반하였다 하여 건설업법 제52조 제1항 제5호, 제2항에 따라 이 사건 면허를 취소처분한 사실을 확정한 다음, 건설업법과 그 시행령 및 시행규칙의 관련규정, 건설부의 ‘건설업자인법인간의합병에대한업무처리지침’에 의하면 건설업자인 법인이 흡수합병을 하는 경우에 종전회사가 가지고 있던 건설업면허가 당연히 존속회사에 승계되는 것은 아니고 존속회사가 건설업법 소정의 면허기준을 갖추어야 승계되는 것으로서 이러한 면허기준을 갖춘 것이 인정되면 건설부장관은 종전에 소멸하는 회사가 소지하고 있던 건설업면허를 취소하고 존속회사에게 건설업면허증 및 면허수첩을 새로이 교부하여야 한다고 전제하고 나서, 피고가 원고와 재설공영 사이의 합병등기가 이루어진 후인 1990.7.18. 원고에게 이 사건 건설업면허증 및 면허수첩을 재교부한 것은 재설공영이 가지고 있던 기존의 면허를 취소하고 존속회사인 원고에게 건설업법 소정의 면허기준을 갖추었음을 인정하고 새로운 건설업면허를 발급한 것으로 보아야 할 것이므로, 그 후 원고가 새로이 발급받은 건설업면허를 타에 대여하였다는 등 위법사항을 인정할 만한 증거가 없는 이 사건에서, 합병전 재설공영이 그 소지하고 있는 건설업면허를 타에 대여한 일이 있다는 사유로서 피고가 원고에게 새로이 발급하여 준 건설업면허를 취소할 수는 없는 것이라고 하여 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 설시하고 있다.

그러나, 건설업법 제13조 제1항은 건설업자인 법인과 건설업자가 아닌 법인이 합병하고자 하는 경우에는 건설부장관의 인가를 받도록 규정하고 있는바, 그 반대해석상 건설업자인 법인 상호간의 합병에는 건설부장관의 인가를 받을 필요가 없는 것으로 보여지고, 또 건설부의 위 지침 제2항은 토목공사업면허를 가진 법인과 건축공사업면허를 가진 법인이 합병하는 경우에 관한 것으로서, 건설업법시행령 제11조 제4항에 의하면 한 사람이 토목공사업면허와 건축공사업면허를 중복하여 받고자 할 경우에는 토목건축공사업의 면허기준을 갖추어야 한다고 규정하고 있으므로, 이는 합병후 존속하는 법인이 토목건축공사업의 면허기준을 갖추고 있는지를 확인하기 위하여 피고의 인가를 받도록 한 것으로 보이고, 따라서 포장공사업의 면허를 가진 원고가 토목건축공사업의 면허를 가진 재설공영을 흡수합병한 이 사건에는 이를 적용할 것이 못된다.

On the other hand, in the case of a corporate merger, the rights and obligations of the merged company shall be deemed to be succeeded to all the surviving company due to the merger, except where the transfer is not permitted by its nature, regardless of the relationship under private law or public law (see Supreme Court Decision 77Nu265 delivered on March 25, 1980). Article 13(2) of the Construction Business Act provides that the license for the construction business of the corporation to be extinguished by the merger shall be transferred to the corporation established or surviving by the merger, and it shall be based on

In addition, Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Business Act provides that a constructor may be reissued when he loses or destroys a construction business license or a construction business license pocketbook or when he/she obtains a construction business license under Article 13 of the Act. The reissue of a construction business license or a construction business license pocketbook is destroyed or worn out, and a new or replaced license or license pocket book with the same contents as the previous license and license pocket book due to the management problems of the former license and license pocket book, such as transfer of the construction business license, etc., is issued. This is an administrative act that certifies it formally and gives public evidence of a specific fact that he/she is expected to obtain a construction business license. Accordingly, the previous license cannot be deemed as invalid and new license granted by the reissue of license and license pocket book, and therefore, the previous license and license cannot be deemed as unlawful if the grounds for new cancellation of license and license pocket prior to the issuance of license and license pocket are no more than 198% of the previous license and license pocket (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1681869, Nov. 16, 20198.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the different purport in this case, which is a merger between corporate constructors, shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the merger between corporate constructors and the legal principles as to the effect of corporate mergers under the Commercial Act. Therefore, there is a ground

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)