Whether Article 24 (1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act violates Article 24 (1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act in a case where a construction business operator subcontracts a part of the whole electrical construction works received by the

In full view of the legislative intent of Article 24(1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 5726 of Jan. 29, 199), Article 24(2) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act, and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16448 of Jun. 30, 199), the prohibition of a lump sum subcontract under Article 24(1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act shall be construed as "no subcontract shall be made to a third party, including all electrical works received by a constructor and provided by the constructor, with the same type of electrical construction works that can be executed separately from the whole electrical works received by the constructor."

Articles 24(1) and (2) (see current Article 14(3)), 47 subparag. 3 (see current Article 42 subparag. 4) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 5726, Jan. 29, 199); Article 22 (see current Article 10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1648, Jun. 30, 199);

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee E-hee

Seoul District Court Decision 99No5255 delivered on January 12, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

In full view of the legislative purport of Article 24(1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 5726 of Jan. 29, 199, hereinafter referred to as the "former Electrical Construction Business Act"), Article 24(2) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act, and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1648 of Jun. 30, 199), the prohibition of blanket subcontract under Article 24(1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act shall be construed as "it shall not give a subcontract to a third party, including all the electrical works received by the constructor and received by the constructor, while the same type of electrical construction works that can be executed technically separately from the total electrical works received by the constructor does not constitute the prohibition (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2812, Mar. 10, 1987).

Examining the selected evidence of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, Defendant 2, the reorganizing company, divided the total electrical construction contracted by the Korea Gas Corporation into 21 small and medium processes which can be technically separated and constructed. The electrical construction stated in the facts charged of this case is limited to one of them, and Defendant 2 is merely 18,054,117,758 won, and the total construction cost of the contracted electrical construction is limited to KRW 1,92,100,000 among them is limited to KRW 1,92,10,000, and Defendant 2, among the total electrical construction contracted by the Korea Gas Corporation, notified the Korea Gas Corporation in writing and approved it by the Korea Gas Corporation pursuant to Article 24(2) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act each time it subcontracted to a third party, including the electrical construction of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 violated the former Electrical Construction Business Act’s subcontracting Act’s subcontracting act of Article 14 of the former Electrical Construction Business Act.

The court below's decision that acquitted the Defendants of violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the interpretation of Article 24 (1) of the former Electrical Construction Business Act and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)