Whether a construction business license is suitable for realization by seizure of a compulsory execution method;

According to the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 9, 16-2, 13, and 15 of the Construction Business Act, if the transfer of construction business is lawfully made with the authorization of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the construction business license is naturally transferred to the transferee, and the construction business license itself is merely a qualification to legally carry on the construction business and thus the transfer is not allowed. Accordingly, the constructor's license is not suitable for the court to seize and liquidate it by compulsory execution.

Article 584 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 6 and 13 of the Construction Business Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 94Ra132,94Ra133 dated August 29, 1994

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Property rights subject to compulsory execution in accordance with Article 584 of the Civil Procedure Act shall have property value independently and transferable, and shall be capable of realizing by monetary evaluation.

According to the Construction Business Act, a person who intends to operate a construction business shall obtain a license from the Minister of Construction and Transportation (Article 6), technical ability, capital, facilities, equipment, etc. which are the criteria for the license (Article 7), disqualifications (Article 9), disqualifications are prohibited (Article 16-2), disqualifications are prohibited from lending a construction business license (Article 16-2). In addition, where the construction business is intended to be transferred, the construction business license shall be transferred to the transferee (Article 13) and the transfer of the construction business shall be limited to the transfer of the whole business (Article 15). Thus, if the transfer of the construction business is legitimate with the approval of the Minister, the construction business license shall be transferred to the transferee as a matter of course, and the transfer of the construction business license itself is not permitted because it is merely a qualification to legally carry on the construction business. Accordingly, the constructor's license is not suitable for the court to seize it by means of compulsory execution.

In the same purport, the order of the court below that rejected the Re-Appellant's application for seizure and realization of the construction business license of this case is proper, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and the costs of reappeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)