[Defendant-Appellee] U.S. 12 others (Attorney Choi Jong-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Do Governor (Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 12, 1978

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The disposition of revocation of registration on each of the mid-terms listed in the attached Forms 1 through 13 dated January 30, 1976 against the plaintiffs by the defendant against the plaintiffs shall be revoked, respectively. The judgment that the litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant did not dispute the facts of cancellation of the above mid-term registration as stated in the plaintiffs' purport of claim, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (the mid-term registration certificate and the mid-term inspection certificate), evidence No. 4-1 (co-operation notice) of the same evidence No. 4-1 (the mid-term registration certificate) and evidence No. 5-1 (the mid-term registration certificate) of the same evidence No. 6-1, 2 (the fact of cancellation of the mid-term registration) of the above Type No. 7 through No. 30, each of the above new documents No. 1 to No. 30 (the notification of cancellation of the registration for the mid-term registration) are recorded in the above new list No. 1 to No. 3 (the notification of the cancellation of the registration for the mid-term registration) without dispute, and the above list No. 4-1 to No. 97, Dec. 1, 196, 2007, each of the above list No. 97.

The plaintiffs' grounds for cancellation of registration under Article 5 of the mid-term Management Act include (1) the mid-term period is destroyed or dismantled, (2) the mid-term period is no longer in conformity with the criteria under Article 11 of the same Act (the criteria prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation concerning the structure and performance of the mid-term period), and (3) the use of the mid-term period is no longer available at the time of disuse, and (3) the plaintiffs' claims that the above certificate of origin is forged does not constitute grounds for cancellation of registration under the above Act, and in cancelling registration with defective reasons for forgery of the above certificate of origin, it does not constitute grounds for cancellation of registration under the above Act. In order to cancel registration with defective reasons, the rights of the plaintiffs already registered as the cancellation of the above registration are violated, and since the rights of the plaintiffs already registered as the plaintiffs are put into various construction projects and were employed for each of the above construction projects, the construction works are not likely to cause enormous loss to the nation's economy and society, and the defendant's assertion that the registration of the source is not legitimate even if it is used.

Therefore, according to Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree, the owner of the mid-term period shall register the mid-term period under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In applying for the mid-term period registration, the owner of the mid-term period shall submit an application for the mid-term period registration along with the revenue or production prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the documents proving that he is the owner of the mid-term period. In addition, Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree provides that when there is a change in the registrant, the mid-term period registration shall be submitted along with the documents proving the change in the report and the mid-term registration certificate. According to the above provision, the mid-term period registration shall be legally imported or manufactured, and only the mid-term period shall be subject to new registration. Since the mid-term period registration in this case was conducted through a forged certificate of completion of import clearance as stated above, and the defendant's testimony of witness and witness, regardless of the purport of the party's testimony, the registration of the above mid-term period registration can be revoked.

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

on January 26, 1978

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)