2. In the event that Defendant 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting each of 50,000 won into one day.

3. To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Defendants 1 and 2

Defendant 1 had Nonindicted Party 1 perform the construction work using the trade name of Defendant 2 corporation in 2009, the total amount of the cooperation company of the common power station in the common power station in 2009, which was ordered from the common power station of the Korea Electric Power Corporation at KRW 680,959,69, Defendant 1, which was ordered from the common power station of the Korea Electric Power Corporation at KRW 2008.

Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 1, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

2. Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 corporation

On December 2009, Defendant 3 had Non-Indicted 1 perform the construction work using the trade name of Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (i.e., active cleaning, steel tower installation, flood bars installation, steel tower number inspection maintenance, transmission line lightning equipment installation, typhoon weak steel tower reinforcement, aviation obstruction maintenance, etc.) in 2010, which was ordered by the Korea Electric Power Corporation to KRW 575,348,55 from the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 3, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

3. Defendants 5 and 6 corporation

Defendant 5 had Nonindicted 1 perform the construction work using the trade name of Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. in 201, which was ordered by the Korea Electric Power Corporation to KRW 435,706,053 from the Korea Electric Power Corporation around January 2011.

Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 5, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

4. A limited partnership company between Defendant 7 and Defendant 8;

Defendant 7, around February 2009, ordered Nonindicted Party 1 to execute the construction work using the trade name of Defendant 8 limited partnership companies, including 154K/V vibrations, which was ordered by the Korea Electric Power Corporation in KRW 180,153,674.

Defendant 8 Limited Partnership Company was a juristic person established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 7, the representative of the juristic person, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the juristic person.

5. Defendants 9 and 10

Defendant 9: (a) around May 2009, ordered Nonindicted Co. 26 to perform installation works of high voltage power lines in a female national industrial complex, which was ordered by Nonindicted Co. 208,90,000 won from Nonindicted Co. 26 to KRW 208,90,000, using the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 10.

Defendant 10 Co., Ltd. was a juristic person established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 9, the representative of the juristic person, committed such an act of violation as above.

8. Defendants 11 and 12

Defendant 11, on July 2009, ordered Nonindicted 1 to perform the construction work using the trade name of Defendant 12 corporation, which was ordered from the Korea Electric Power Company to KRW 333,608,045, which was ordered from the Korea Electric Power Company to KRW 333,608,045.

Defendant 12 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 11, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

7. Defendants 13 and 14 corporation

around March 2011, Defendant 13 subcontracted Defendant 14 Co., Ltd., the representative director, and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., to Defendant 16 Co., Ltd, the amount of the actual cost of which is equivalent to the shares of Defendant 14 Co., Ltd., among the steel tower removal work, which was ordered from Busan Traffic Co., Ltd. to KRW 630,776,130, the amount of the construction cost of KRW 630,776,130, from Busan Traffic Co., Ltd. (Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.).

Defendant 14 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 13, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

8. Defendants 15 and 16 corporation

Defendant 15: (a) around March 201, 201, Defendant 14 and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (Defendant 14 Co., Ltd.: Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.), the representative director of which was Defendant 14 Co., Ltd., were given a subcontract from Defendant 14 Co., Ltd. to the amount of the actual cost of Defendant 14 Co., Ltd, for the installation of steel tower in the amount of KRW 630,776,130 from Busan Traffic Co., Ltd. (Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.) and the joint performance method of Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.).

Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant 15, the representative of the corporation, committed such a violation with regard to the business of the corporation.

9. Defendant 17

around March 201 to July 201, Defendant 17, without registering construction business, carried on the electrical construction business without registration by executing the steel tower removal work with the name of Defendant 16 corporation, which was contracted or subcontracted by Busan Traffic Corporation and Defendant 14 corporation, such as the above paragraph (8) at the Busan Coast Guard and Nowon-dong, around March 201.

2. Each of the witness Nonindicted 2, 3, 1, and 4’s legal statements

3. Copy of the respective protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 5, Defendant 11, Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Changwon District Court case 2012 Godan392, and copy of the sixth protocol of trial

4. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 3, Nonindicted 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14

5. Each police statement on Nonindicted 11, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 13, 10, 19, 14, 12, 9, 8, 21, 22, 5, 23, 24, and 25

6. The sentence of 2012 Highest 392;

7. Each protocol of seizure;

8. Investigation report (such as attachment of registered matters, 152 pages), investigation report (2 book 623 pages of investigation records), investigation report (2 book 623 pages of investigation records), investigation report (2 book 626 pages of investigation records, 2 book 626 pages of investigation records, 652 pages of investigation records), response to the request for cooperation in investigation affairs (2 book 652 pages of investigation records), investigation report (3 book 920 pages of investigation records, 3 book 920 pages of investigation records), investigation report (3 book 978 pages of investigation records, 4 book 4 book 1081 of investigation records), non-indicted 1 Agricultural Cooperative account (4 book 4 book 1081 of investigation records), non-indicted 4 agricultural account (4 book 1171 of investigation records), each financial transaction reply (4 book 1256 through 1348 of investigation records), Non-indicted 12581 of investigation records, 1582 of investigation records, etc.

0 Defendant 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11: Article 42 Subparag. 3 and Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act;

0 Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, limited partnership company, Defendant 10, Defendant 12 and Defendant 12: Articles 45 and 42 subparag. 3 and 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act.

0. Defendant 13: Article 42 subparag. 4 and Article 14(1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act

0. Defendant 14 Stock Company: Article 45, Article 42 subparag. 4, and Article 14(1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act

0. Defendant 15: Article 45, Article 42 subparag. 4, Article 14 (1) (a violation of a restriction on subcontract) of the Electrical Construction Business Act, Article 42 subparag. 3, and Article 10 (a violation of a restriction on subcontract) of the Electrical Construction Business Act.

0. Defendant 16 Stock Company: Article 45, Article 42 subparag. 4, Article 14(1) (a) of the Electrical Construction Business Act, Article 45, subparagraph 3 of Article 42, and Article 10 (a) of the Electrical Construction Business Act.

0. Defendant 17: Article 42 Subparag. 1, Article 44(1) (U.S. without Registration and Electrical Construction Business Act), Article 42 Subparag. 3, and Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act (U.S. on the Protection of Electrical Construction Business)

2. Competition;

0 Defendant 17: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

0. Defendants 15 and 16: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Detention in a workhouse;

0 Defendant 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

4. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In light of the provisions of Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act, even if a construction business operator receives a contract for a project properly and allows another person to perform the project only by using his/her name or trade name, it is prohibited from the act of name lending (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10778, May 27, 2010).

The phrase “act of having another person execute construction works using his/her name or trade name (hereinafter “titleing”)” prohibited under the above provision shall be interpreted to mean a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood to use his/her trade name or name for the same purpose with the knowledge that he/she would perform electrical construction works by using his/her trade name or name. Thus, even if a construction business operator executes all or most of the contracted or subcontracted electrical construction works in the name of another (hereinafter “contractor”), if the construction business operator actually participated in the execution process, it shall not be deemed the nominal name of the constructor. Whether the constructor actually participated in the execution of electrical construction should be determined in light of the following: (a) details of the agreement between the construction business operator and the constructor related to the execution, (b) the extent and scope of the agreement, (c) the procurement and management of funds, methods of receipt of payment, (d) methods of receipt of payment, and (e) the responsibility for profit and loss arising from the execution, etc., and (e) the name-titleing person and the actual fact of execution should not be objectively determined.

However, in light of the following circumstances, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 1’s employees, who were in fact responsible for the above construction work, were listed as employees of each of the above Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 1’s employees, and their employees were employed in the form of four insurance (However, Defendant 17 was affiliated with the other and did not subscribe to four insurance). Defendant Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 1 were employed in the name of each of the above Defendant Co. 1’s employees, including Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 17, who were in fact responsible for the above construction work, and Defendant Co. 1 and Co. 17, who were in fact responsible for the above construction work. In light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Co. 1 were in fact responsible for the above construction work, it is difficult to view that the above Defendant Co. 1 and Co. 1 were in fact responsible for the above construction work. Defendant Co. 1 and Co. 17, who were in fact responsible for the above construction work.

2. On the violation of the restriction on subcontracting by Defendant 14 and Defendant 16

Article 14 of the Electrical Construction Business Act provides for the restriction on a specific subcontract, including a blanket subcontract restriction, by providing for basic matters concerning electrical construction business and the execution, technical management and contract for electrical construction business for the purpose of promoting the sound development of electrical construction business and securing the safe and appropriate execution of electrical construction works without restriction in light of the purport of Article 1 of the Electrical Construction Business Act, etc. In order to prevent any insolvency of electrical construction works due to subcontracts or sub-subcontracts, i.e., maintaining a certain level of work quality., securing a responsible execution. In light of the purport of the provision, even in a case where a contractor subcontracts electrical construction works equivalent to his/her share among the contracted electrical construction works to another constructor, he/she shall be deemed to be in violation of Article 14(1) and (2) of the Electrical Construction Business Act. Further, in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Electrical Construction Business Act, “contract” means a contract under which the other party agrees to complete electrical construction works regardless of its title, subcontract, consignment or any other title, and the other party agrees to pay a subcontract for electrical construction business.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., proposed that Defendant 14 Co., Ltd. will take profits other than approximately 80% of the actual construction cost, out of the expected successful bid price if they offer joint bids to Defendant 14 Co., Ltd. for the purpose of obtaining orders by Defendant 13 only, and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., Ltd., were to enter into a joint contract with the Busan Metropolitan City at least 49% of the construction cost and the Busan Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., as well as Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., Ltd., for the above construction cost of Defendant 14 Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., to whom Defendant 16 Co., Ltd., Ltd., conducted the above construction work at the construction site.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Chang-hwan

1) Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Electrical Construction Business Act provides that “construction business” shall be engaged in the business of electrical construction, regardless of the titles, such as a contract for work or any other title, and Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that a person who has registered a construction business pursuant to Article 4(1) of the same Act shall be

(2) Unlike the previous related decisions, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1078 Decided that a construction business operator may be subject to the name lending even in cases where only a construction business operator independently performed a contract separate from the supply of and demand for a contract (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1078 Decided October 15, 2004 ruled that the circumstance on whether a registered one has been actually involved in the execution cannot be used as a ground for determining whether a construction business operator actually participated in the execution) is limited to a registered one pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Electrical Construction Business Act. Thus, the Supreme Court Decision 2004Do365 Decided October 15, 2004 ruled that the act of a construction business operator giving a subcontract to a construction business operator who has not registered is not subject to Article 14 of the Electrical Construction Business Act (limited to a subcontract, etc.) is not subject to punishment for the actual subcontract to a construction business operator who has not registered (limited to a registered one under the Electrical Construction Business Act, and thus, a person who executes an electrical construction business without registration is subject to prevent a construction business operator from performing his/her duties under Article 108 of the Electrical Construction Business Act.

(3) In the Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10778, the court held that the act of lending the name of the contractor is not a reason for denying the act of lending the name is merely a mere fact that the employee of the contractor visits the construction site more than one to three times a week, the inspection of the progress of the construction, and the fact that the contractor paid the construction cost due to the work cost under the name of the contractor, due to the fact that the contractor properly contracted the construction and is in the position of the person performing the construction work under the name of the contractor.

4) In light of the fact that the Electrical Construction Business Act strictly limits the requirements for registration of a constructor and the purport of the Electrical Construction Business Act for the purpose of responsible performance, etc., two or more constructors jointly shall not be treated as one constructor in interpreting Article 14 of the Electrical Construction Business Act.