(a) Where a construction business license is renewed, whether the illegality of the constructor before the renewal is cured (negative);

B. Character of the proviso of Article 38(1) of the Construction Business Act

(a) Where a license is renewed, the existing license will continue to be effective in the future while maintaining its identity, and it cannot be deemed that the license prior to its renewal is invalidated and new license is granted. Therefore, all illegal causes of the constructor prior to its renewal are cured by the renewal of the license, or the passage of a certain date cannot be deemed to be cured of such illegal causes.

B. According to the proviso of Article 38(1) of the Construction Business Act, when a constructor grants a construction business license to another person, the Minister of Construction and Transportation must cancel the construction license and it is clear that there is no discretion to decide whether to cancel the construction license. Thus, the cancellation right is not restricted on the ground that the above construction business license cancellation disposition is disadvantageous to the Plaintiff or has great damage to the Plaintiff.

(a) Article 5(5) of the Construction Business Act; Articles 12 and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 38(1)8 of the Construction Business Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu85 delivered on October 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded that Non-party 1 entered into a contract for construction of the access road to the national housing complex and the facilities attached thereto, such as the construction of the access road to the national housing complex, the road crossings, and the cross-sections attached thereto, but he could not enter into a contract for construction works with Ypo-si and the construction cost cannot be directly received. Therefore, he did not receive the construction cost directly. Thus, on November 1, 1973, the court below concluded a contract with the non-party 2, who was the head of Sipo-Spo-si, the plaintiff company, under the name of the plaintiff company, to pay 10% of the construction cost to the non-party 1, who received the construction cost after entering into the contract for construction work in the name of the plaintiff company. The court below concluded a contract for construction of the road road to the above housing complex with Ypo-si using the plaintiff company's construction business license pocketbook and the plaintiff company's construction cost received under the name of the plaintiff company.

(2) According to the purport of Article 5(5) of the Construction Business Act, Articles 12 and 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act, a constructor's technical ability, capital, facilities, and equipment possessed by him/her is examined and decided whether or not to renew the construction business license in accordance with the purpose of the provisions of Article 5(5) of the Construction Business Act, and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act. Thus, if a construction business license is renewed, the effect of the existing license shall remain in the future while maintaining its identity, and it shall not be deemed that a renewed license is invalidated and new license is granted. Therefore, it shall not be accepted that all illegal causes of the constructor prior to the renewal of

(3) According to the proviso of Article 38(1) of the Construction Business Act, when a constructor lends a construction business license to another person, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall cancel the construction license, and it is clear that there is no room for the licensing authority to decide whether to cancel it, and thus, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no argument that the cancellation right is restricted on the ground that the above disposition of cancellation of construction business license is remarkably disadvantageous to the Plaintiff or the

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)