(a) The case holding that a disposition of cancellation of a construction business license is lawful on the ground of an act of lending a construction business license under the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4075 of Dec. 31, 1988) and a request for cancellation of the head of a tax office

B. Whether a disposition to revoke a construction business license on the ground of a violation of Article 52(1)5 of the former Construction Business Act can constitute a deviation of discretion (negative)

A. If the Plaintiff Company borrowed a construction business license on five occasions with money, and the head of the competent tax office requested the Defendant, who is the Minister of Construction and Transportation, to revoke the Plaintiff’s construction business license on the ground of the fact that the Plaintiff Company’s revocation of the Plaintiff Company’s construction business license by applying Article 52(1)5 and 7 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4075 of Dec. 31, 198) is lawful, and there are extenuating circumstances, such as the provision of substantial security against the delinquent national tax.

B. In the case of Article 52 (1) 5 of the former Construction Business Act, it is apparent that there is no room for the licensing authority to decide whether to cancel it. Thus, the cancellation disposition of construction business cannot be deemed to deviate from the scope of discretion on the ground that it violated the said Article.

Article 52 (1) b of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4075 of Dec. 31, 1988)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10765 delivered on February 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below held that the plaintiff company received a maximum amount of KRW 8,910,00 from the non-party creation letter of April 1, 1987, the non-party 8,910,00 from the non-party 1, and lent the plaintiff company's construction business license to the non-party 1 in the same manner five times between the non-party 1, 198, such as lending the plaintiff company's construction business license to the non-party 8,910,00 won, and the non-party 2 had lent the plaintiff company's construction business license to the non-party 1, 198. The plaintiff company violated the law of 15,745,460 on October 20, 198 as well as the law of 15,000 on June 30, 1988 on the ground that the non-party 2, 1988, which had been notified of the tax payment notice, such as corporate tax, value-added tax, etc., but did not pay each tax.

2. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu354 delivered on October 22, 1985, which cited the theory of lawsuit, is an interpretation of Article 38 (1) 8 of the Construction Business Act prior to the wholly amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984, which provides that the act of lending a construction business license to contract or execute construction works using his name or trade name shall be one of the grounds for cancellation of a construction business license, and it is apparent in the text of the law that Article 52 (1) 5 of the Construction Business Act provides that the court below applied the corresponding provision of the former Construction Business Act to the act of lending the Plaintiff's license as stated in its reasoning. In addition, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 52 (1) 5 of the former Construction Business Act, and in the case of Article 52 (1) 5 of the former Construction Business Act, it cannot be said that there is no room to cancel the scope of discretion of the Plaintiff in the above case.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal that the cancellation of the construction business license by reason of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in tax payment is illegal, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)