The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not lend his name to D by allowing D to use the trade name of C (hereinafter “C”).

2. Determination

A. Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act prohibits “the act of having another person execute electrical construction works by using his/her name or trade name (hereinafter “titleing”) shall be construed as a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood to use his/her name or trade name for the same purpose while performing electrical construction works by using his/her name or trade name. Thus, even if the other person (hereinafter “contractor”) executes all or most of the electrical construction works contracted in the name of a construction business operator after being entrusted with it by another person (hereinafter “the constructor”), it shall not be deemed as a name lending if the construction business operator receives a supply of and has been actually involved in the electrical construction and has actually participated in the execution process.

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 and the payment of consideration, the details of consideration and the method of receiving payment, 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 solely based on the belief that the formal text of the disposal document, such as a contract between the name holder and the contractor, is unhulled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do5541, Dec. 26, 2003; 2013Do96

The judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court can be recognized as a whole.