Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Temporary minor shortfall as an exception to registration sanctions
Supreme Court, Jan. 9, 2020, 2018Du47561 (judgment)
Case name: 영업정지처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a construction business that falls temporarily and only slightly short of the registration criteria fall outside the grounds for deregistration or up to one year's business suspension under Article 83(iii) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, even where it is not within any item of Article 79-2 of the former Enforcement Decree?
Holding
Yes. The items of Article 79-2 of the former Enforcement Decree only spell out, by way of example, the situations in which the sanction under Article 83(iii) does not apply, because the proviso to Article 83(iii) can be read as embodying the constitutional principle of proportionality against the strongest sanction in the Act. A builder that is only temporarily and slightly short of the registration criteria is therefore outside the sanction even if no item of the Decree covers it, so that the 11-day shortfall without a certificate of guaranteed amounts, caused mainly by the construction guarantee union's mishandling and with no significant fault or blameworthiness on the builder's part, could not be sanctioned.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
시행령 제79조의2 각호에 해당하지 않더라도 건설업자가 건설업 등록기준에 일시적으로 경미하게 미달한 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 법 제83조 제3호 단서에 따라 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지라는 제재처분의 대상에서 제외된다고 해석함이 정당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where a case does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree, where the construction business operator may be regarded as having temporarily and only slightly failed to meet the registration requirements for construction business registration, it is proper to construe that the operator is excluded from being subject to a sanction of deregistration or suspension of business for not more than one year pursuant to the proviso to subparagraph 3 of Article 83 of the Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제79조의2 각호는 건설산업기본법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제83조 제3호 단서의 위임 취지에 따라 법 제83조 제3호 본문에 의한 제재처분의 대상이 되지 않는 경우를 구체화하여 예시적으로 규정한 것이라고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Each subparagraph of Article 79-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the one before its amendment by Presidential Decree No. 27440 of August 4, 2016) is properly regarded as specifically providing, in an illustrative manner, the cases which do not become subject to a sanction under the main text of subparagraph 3 of Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), in accordance with the purpose of the delegation of the proviso to subparagraph 3 of Article 83 of the Act.
Factors
- 법 제83조에 의한 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지가 위 법이 규정한 여러 종류의 제재처분들 중에서도 가장 강도가 높은 제재수단에 해당하는 점을 고려하여
- 건설업 등록기준에 일시적으로 경미하게 미달한 건설업자에 대해서는
- 헌법상 비례의 원칙을 구현하기 위한 것이라고 볼 수 있다
- 하위법령은 최대한 헌법과 모법에 합치되도록 해석하여야 한다는 법령해석의 원칙에도 부합하게 된다
Unofficial English translation
• Considering that deregistration or suspension of business for not more than one year pursuant to Article 83 of the Act corresponds to a sanctioning means of the highest intensity among the various kinds of sanctions provided for by the Act,
• as for a construction business operator who has temporarily and only slightly failed to meet the registration requirements for construction business registration,
• it may be regarded as implementing the principle of proportionality under the Constitution
• it will also accord with the principle of statutory interpretation that subordinate statutes must be interpreted so as to conform as much as possible to the Constitution and the parent statute
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
헌법상 비례의 원칙의 구현이라는 측면에서 건설산업기본법령 관련 규정들의 내용과 체계, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
Where the contents and system of the relevant provisions of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and its Enforcement Decree, the legislative purpose, etc. are comprehensively considered from the perspective of implementing the principle of proportionality under the Constitution,
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What length of shortfall and what degree of fault on the builder's part draw the line between a temporary and slight breach and one that may be sanctioned?
The remand judgment of the Daegu High Court will show how the temporary and slight breach was applied to these facts. Any amendment to Article 83(iii) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or to Article 79-2 of its Enforcement Decree, in particular any addition covering the certificate of guaranteed amounts, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reads the holding as setting a new standard, while the independent reader could not confirm any precedent relationship, so they differ on how the decision relates to prior precedent.
헌법상 비례의 원칙의 구현이라는 측면에서 건설산업기본법령 관련 규정들의 내용과 체계, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daegu High Court, in its judgment of 18 May 2018 (2018Nu2323), treated the plaintiff as having breached the registration criteria in item 1-2 of Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree for 11 days from 3 to 13 June 2016, when the certificate of guaranteed amounts issued in the name of Cheonil Construction ceased to be effective and no new certificate had yet been issued. Because the plaintiff fell within none of the items of Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree, it upheld the four-month business suspension ordered on 6 March 2017 under Article 83(iii) of the Act as a lawful measure.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misunderstood the constitutional principle of proportionality and the proviso to Article 83(iii) of the Act, with an error that affected its decision. The brief period of shortfall, the fact that it arose from the construction guarantee union's refusal of the name transfer and reissuance in order to recover from the plaintiff a loss sustained through Cheonil Construction's insolvency, and the absence of significant fault or blameworthiness on the plaintiff's part together made this a temporary and slight breach, so the sanction could not be imposed. It therefore reversed the judgment below and remanded the case to the Daegu High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A shortfall in registration criteria that lasted for a long period or arose from the builder's own deteriorated finances or credit rating, so that it cannot be called temporary and slight.
- A case where the shortfall concerns technical capability or capital that Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree does address, so that the exclusion is decided by that item itself.
- A case governed by Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree as amended by Presidential Decree No. 27440 of 4 August 2016, since this decision applied the earlier version.
Record verification notes
Set against the file the exact number of days the criteria were not met, the date the certificate of guaranteed amounts was refused or cancelled, and the reason, as the Court turned on these three points. Then check the version of Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree in force at the time of the measure, and the sanction range in Table 6, including the half-range aggravation and mitigation, before relying on this decision.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 건설업자가 갖추어야 할 등록기준에 미달하는 경우 제재처분을 하도록 규정한 건설산업기본법 제83조 및 일시적으로 등록기준을 미달하는 등의 경우 그 예외를 규정한 같은 법 제83조 제3호 단서의 입법 취지 [2] 건설업 등록기준에 미달하였으나 등록말소 등 제재처분의 대상이 되지 않는 예외적인 경우를 규정한 구 건설산업기본법 시행령 제79조의2 각호가 예시적 규정인지 여부(적극) [3] 구 건설산업기본법 시행령 제79조의2 각호에 해당하지 않으나 건설업자가 건설업 등록기준에 일시적으로 경미하게 미달한 경우, 건설산업기본법 제83조 제3호 단서에 따라 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지라는 제재처분의 대상에서 제외되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The legislative purpose of Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which provides for a sanction to be imposed where a construction business operator fails to meet the registration requirements that it must satisfy, and of the proviso to subparagraph 3 of the same Article, which provides exceptions in cases where the registration requirements are temporarily not met, etc. [2] Whether each subparagraph of Article 79-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which prescribes exceptional cases in which, although failing to meet the registration requirements for construction business registration, an operator does not become subject to a sanction such as deregistration, is an illustrative provision (affirmative) [3] Where a construction business operator does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 79-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry but has temporarily and only slightly failed to meet the registration requirements for construction business registration, whether it is excluded from being subject to a sanction of deregistration or suspension of business for not more than one year pursuant to the proviso to subparagraph 3 of Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 건설산업기본법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다)이 건설업자가 갖추어야 할 등록기준을 정하고, 그 등록기준에 미달하는 경우 건설업자에 대하여 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지라는 중대한 제재처분을 하도록 규정한 것은, 건설업자들로 하여금 일정한 등록기준을 갖추도록 강제하고 등록기준을 갖추지 못한 건설업자가 건설시장에서 활동하지 못하도록 함으로써 건설공사의 적정한 시공과 건설산업의 건전한 발전을 도모하려는 데에 입법 취지가 있다(법 제1조, 제3조 참조). 나아가 법 제83조 제3호 본문이 건설업자가 건설업 등록기준에 미달한 경우를 건설업자에 대한 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지 사유로 규정하면서도, 제83조 제3호 단서가 ‘일시적으로 등록기준에 미달하는 등 대통령령으로 정하는 경우는 예외로 한다’고 규정한 것은, 법 제83조에 의한 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지가 위 법이 규정한 여러 종류의 제재처분들 중에서도 가장 강도가 높은 제재수단에 해당하는 점을 고려하여, 건설업 등록기준에 일시적으로 경미하게 미달한 건설업자에 대해서는 법 제83조에 의한 제재처분을 하지 않도록 함으로써 헌법상 비례의 원칙을 구현하기 위한 것이라고 볼 수 있다. [2] 헌법상 비례의 원칙의 구현이라는 측면에서 건설산업기본법령 관련 규정들의 내용과 체계, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제79조의2 각호는 건설산업기본법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제83조 제3호 단서의 위임 취지에 따라 법 제83조 제3호 본문에 의한 제재처분의 대상이 되지 않는 경우를 구체화하여 예시적으로 규정한 것이라고 봄이 타당하다. [3] 구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘시행령’이라 한다) 제79조의2 각호는 건설산업기본법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제83조 제3호 단서의 위임 취지에 따라 법 제83조 제3호 본문에 의한 제재처분의 대상이 되지 않는 경우를 구체화하여 예시적으로 규정한 것이므로, 시행령 제79조의2 각호에 해당하지 않더라도 건설업자가 건설업 등록기준에 일시적으로 경미하게 미달한 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 법 제83조 제3호 단서에 따라 등록말소 또는 1년 이내의 영업정지라는 제재처분의 대상에서 제외된다고 해석함이 정당하다. 이로써 하위법령은 최대한 헌법과 모법에 합치되도록 해석하여야 한다는 법령해석의 원칙에도 부합하게 된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 건설산업기본법 제1조, 제3조, 제9조, 제83조 제3호, 구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항, 제79조의2 [2] 건설산업기본법 제1조, 제3조, 제9조, 제83조 제3호, 구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항, 제79조의2 [3] 건설산업기본법 제1조, 제3조, 제9조, 제83조 제3호, 구 건설산업기본법 시행령(2016. 8. 4. 대통령령 제27440호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항, 제79조의2
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger