Tohoku Bureau revokes Koei Construction's landscaping business license

The Official Gazette dated September 17, 2026, announced that Yu Kojima, Director-General of the Tohoku Regional Development Bureau, revoked the special construction business license of Koei Construction Co., Ltd. The action was taken as of August 27, 2026, and pertains to the special construction business license for landscaping work. The announcement was published based on the provisions of Article 29-5, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act (Act No. 100 of 1949).

Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act stipulates that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism or a prefectural governor may revoke a license if a licensed construction business operator falls under any of the items listed in said paragraph. In this case, Item 5 of the same paragraph was applied, and the revocation is based on the filing of a notification of business closure. The announcement explicitly states that the notification of business closure, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 of the same Act (including cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis in Article 17), was filed as of August 27, 2026, which served as the factual basis for the action.

Business Operator Subject to Action and License Identification Information

The information regarding the party subject to the action as listed in the announcement is as follows:

• Trade Name: Koei Construction Co., Ltd.
• Name of Representative: Nobukatsu Sato
• Location of Principal Office: 5-1-37 Miyazaki, Higashine City, Yamagata Prefecture
• License Number: Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism License (Special 05) No. 28789

Details of the Action and Legal Basis for the Announcement

The details and basis of the action are organized in the text of the announcement as follows:

• Date of Action: August 27, 2026
• Content of Action: Revocation of license based on Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act (Special construction business license for landscaping work)
• Factual Basis for Action: A notification of business closure was filed as of August 27, 2026, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 of the Construction Business Act (including cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis in Article 17), falling under Article 29, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the same Act
• Basis for Announcement: Article 29-5, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act
• Announcer: Yu Kojima, Director-General of the Tohoku Regional Development Bureau (dated September 17, 2026)

Comparison with Similar Revocation Actions Published in the Official Gazette

This case follows another announcement of a construction business license revocation published in the Official Gazette on September 4, 2026, regarding Ile Engineering Co., Ltd. (Kurashiki City, Okayama Prefecture; special construction business license for piping and plumbing work; action taken as of July 31, 2026, by Taishi Yamamoto, Director-General of the Chugoku Regional Development Bureau). Both cases are common in that the revocations were based on notifications of business closure and the licenses were revoked on a per-business-type basis.

A Special Construction Business license is a fundamental qualification related to the payment of subcontracting fees and eligibility to participate in bids for public works. The revocation of this license means the loss of the status required to undertake projects of a certain scale or larger as a prime contractor for the relevant business category. Since ordering agencies verify the existence of such licenses during the bid participation qualification screening, this may affect the selection of contractors for public works, primarily in the Tohoku region.

Official Sources

• Official Gazette, September 17, 2026 (Thursday), “Public Notice of Revocation of Construction Business License,” Director General of Tohoku Regional Development Bureau Yu Kojima
• Legal Basis: Construction Business Act (Act No. 100 of 1949), Article 29 Paragraph 1, Article 29-5 Paragraph 1, Article 12 (including cases where applied mutatis mutandis in Article 17)