A. Since the Defendant Company ordered the instant construction with the intention of actual construction, and was actually involved in the construction even after subcontracting with G Co., Ltd., it does not lend its trade name.

B. The mutual user under Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201) is limited to the “registered construction business operator”, while a person who received a subcontract under Article 29(1) of the same Act is a “contractor that registered a construction business,” and if there was no actual involvement, it cannot be awarded a subcontract, and thus, a violation of both provisions cannot be established. In this case, G stock company registered a construction business, and thus, a violation of Article 21(1) of the same Act cannot be established.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act of allowing another person to receive or execute construction works using his/her name or trade name” prohibited by Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry as to a mistake of fact shall be interpreted as a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood to use his/her trade name or name for the same purpose while carrying out construction works with qualification as a qualified constructor using his/her trade name or name. As such, all or most of the subcontracted construction works in the name of a constructor were executed by another person.

Even if the constructor himself/herself has received a contract for actual involvement in the construction work and has actually been actually involved in the construction work, it cannot be viewed as a lending of name. Whether the constructor has actually been involved in the supply and demand of construction works and construction work, the details of the contract between the constructor and the contractor related to the construction work, and whether the contractor has actually been involved in the construction work.