1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The period of business suspension imposed on the Plaintiff on June 29, 2016 is July 2016.

1. The reasoning for this part is that the court’s reasoning for this decision is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “subcontract for electrical construction” under Article 18 of the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the entire process of the contracted electrical construction is used as “a lump sum subcontract for the contracted electrical construction.” Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition based on the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) According to Article 16(2)1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, where a contractor receives a contract for a construction work as an appurtenant work of a construction work under way, he/she may perform the relevant appurtenant work in the position of the general constructor, without registering a separate specialized construction business. In extenuating circumstances where it is inevitable to involve a large number of appurtenant works in a comprehensive construction work, construction work needs to be classified based on the nature of the principal construction work, irrespective of the nature of the appurtenant work. Therefore, the substance of the instant additional construction work is only an electrical construction work under

(2) Even if the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant additional construction works, as long as it is obvious that the said additional construction works were added as appurtenant works to the instant road works, the said additional construction works shall be deemed to have been awarded a contract according to the nature of the principal construction works, and it shall not be deemed that the instant additional construction works were separately awarded a contract for the instant electrical construction works. (2) Even if the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant additional construction works, as long as the instant additional construction works and integrated construction works were ordered, Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is the Act on the Construction Industry, which is the basis of the instant construction works, is not applied

3. The Electrical Construction Business Act shall apply to the subcontract of this case.