Whether the revocation of registration of an architect office without undergoing the hearing procedures is appropriate;

In the cancellation of registration of a certified architect office, the purport of the administrative disposition is to give the certified architect an opportunity to submit a vindication and favorable data to the certified architect in relation to the grounds for the cancellation of registration so that the existing right of the certified architect is not unfairly infringed due to the above administrative disposition, considering the circumstances of the reason for the cancellation of registration, and to ensure the carefulness and appropriateness of the disposition. Therefore, even if the grounds such as the cancellation of registration under Article 28 of the Certified Architects Act exist clearly, the disposition for the cancellation of registration of the certified architect office is unlawful unless the certified architect fails to comply with the hearing without justifiable grounds.

Article 28 of the Certified Architects Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Certified Architects Act (Presidential Decree No. 9138, May 26, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 9878)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Choi Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu708 delivered on February 25, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revoked the registration of the architect office of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant's design and supervision of plaintiff 1 and constructed as a joint architect by the plaintiff 2 and 3 on June 30, 1980, the above ground buildings owned by the non-party 95-264 of the non-party 1, which were owned by the non-party 2 and 3, exceeded 4.7 percent of building-to-land ratio, 35 square meters, the height of the ground floor area, 1.35 meters or above, 60 centimeters or above, and the ground-to-land 60 centimeters or above were violated the Building Act. The defendant, upon receiving a request from the head of Dobong-gu office of Dobong-gu for administrative disposition against the plaintiffs, stated that the defendant did not affix seals under the name of the plaintiff 1 to confirm the violation and did not affix seals to the plaintiffs' architect office to confirm the violation, but because it did not cause the non-party 1's disease or any other reason for the violation.

According to Article 28 of the Certified Architects Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9183, May 26, 1980), when the founder of a certified architect violates an order or disposition under the Certified Architects Act or the Building Act, the establisher of the certified architect office may cancel the registration of the certified architect office or order him to close the office for a fixed period. This provision of Article 1 of the Regulations on the Cancellation and Closure of the Registration of the Certified Architects (No. 447, Sept. 6, 1979) provides for the detailed criteria for the cancellation and closure of the registration of the certified architect office pursuant to the provisions of Article 28 of the Certified Architects Act and Article 30 of the same Enforcement Decree. Article 9 provides that if the establisher of the certified architect office intends to cancel the registration of the certified architect office, he shall not hear the opinion of the reference witness, unless he complies with the above procedure without any justifiable reason for the cancellation of the registration of the certified architect office's right in advance.

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 judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)