Among them, the part on Defendant M, N,O, and P are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are prohibited by Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act (hereinafter referred to as "titleing"). It is interpreted that "the act of allowing another person to execute electrical construction by using his/her name or trade name (hereinafter referred to as "the act of allowing another person to use his/her name or trade name") means a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood to use his/her name or trade name for the same purpose while he/she conducts electrical construction as a qualified constructor by using his/her name or trade name. Thus, even if the other person (hereinafter referred to as "contractor") entrusts all or part of the electrical construction contracted in the name of a construction business operator, if the other person receives it as his/her intention to actually participate in the electrical construction and actually participates in the execution process, it shall not be deemed as the

In this context, whether a construction business operator actually participated in the execution of electrical construction should be objectively determined in light of the facts revealed, such as the details of the supply and demand of electrical construction, the promise of consideration and the receipt of consideration, the contents and methods of receiving consideration, the agreement between the construction business operator and the constructor related to the execution, whether the construction business operator was involved in the execution process, the degree and scope of the involvement, the method of financing and management of construction funds and receipt of progress payment, the liability arising from the execution, and any reversion of profit and loss, etc. In addition, the fact of lending the name of a construction business operator should not be denied by believing only the formal text of the disposal document, such as a contract between the nominal owner and the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do54