The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The subcontract agreement of each of the instant construction works was concluded under the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and D is practically involved in each of the instant construction works throughout the entire process of claiming and receiving the amount of money, including labor costs and material costs, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the license was leased to I.

2. Determination

A. Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry prohibits “act of allowing another person to receive or perform construction works using his/her name or trade name” means 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 will receive or perform construction works by using his/her trade name or name. Thus, even if a third person entrusts and executes all or part of subcontracted construction works in the name of a constructor, if the constructor himself/herself has received or actually participated in the construction work, it cannot be deemed as a nominal lease. Whether the constructor actually participated in the supply and demand and construction work should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following legal principles: (i) the process of the supply and demand of construction work and the receipt of consideration; (ii) the content and method of the payment; (iii) the agreement between the constructor and the constructor related to the construction work; (iv) the degree and extent of the subcontracted construction work; and (v) the relationship between the constructor and the constructor’s receipt and payment method; and (iv) the relationship between the constructor and the constructor’s receipt and payment method.