On June 2, 2003, the Seoul District Court's commercial registry office's decision to dismiss an applicant for registration of a trade name shall be revoked, and the above application for registration shall be accepted and the registration shall be executed in accordance with its purport.

According to the records, on May 29, 2003, the applicant filed an application for registration of the establishment of the trade name of this case with the trade name of "○○ Law Office" as an attorney-at-law on May 29, 2003, along with the business registration certificate that registered the general taxable person's business (hereinafter referred to as "application for registration of the establishment of the trade name of this case"), and the above registry office's registration office's rejection of the application for registration of the trade name of this case by applying Article 159 subparagraph 2 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act to the commercial registry office of this court on June 29, 2003.

2. The claimant's assertion and judgment

A. Applicant's assertion

On February 28, 2002, the applicant leased the 7th floor of the above building from the owner of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) △△ building on March 12, 2002 and completed the registration of the attorney at the Seoul Bar Association on March 12, 2002. On March 13, 2003, the applicant provided the Seoul Seocho-gu Office of Tax Service with the trade name "○○○ Law Office", the location of the office "Seoul Seocho-gu ( Address omitted), the 7th floor of the office", the category "service", the business registration number "Attorney" and the 5th business registration number provide various physical and personal facilities to many unspecified customers, and the applicant provided the same kind of commercial activities and provided the same legal services for commercial purpose as the 5th day of the establishment of the commercial law, and thus, the applicant continues to engage in the same commercial activity as the 5th day of the establishment of the commercial law.

B. Facts of recognition

According to the records, as alleged by the applicant, on February 28, 2002, the applicant leased his/her office to the 7th floor of the above building from the owner of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) △△ building on March 12, 2002, and completed his/her attorney registration to the Seoul Bar Association (registration number omitted) on March 12, 2002, and the head of Seoul Seocho District Tax Office on March 13, 2003, on the following day: ○○○ Legal Office's trade name; ○○ Office's location for the Seoul Seocho-gu ( Address omitted); 7th floor in the Seoul Seocho-gu, △△△ building's place of business's place of business; hereinafter referred to as the "service's place of business"; hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney's office's place of business"; hereinafter the business registration number is equipped with other human and material facilities for

(c) Markets:

(1) Key issue: Trade name (referring to the meaning that is distinguished from the part of trade name in business registration) under the Commercial Act refers to the name of a company used by a merchant for business activities. Therefore, the issue in this case is whether a lawyer is a merchant of a lawyer. Whether a lawyer can be a merchant in a case where a lawyer is equipped with a merchant facility and conducts a lawyer's act in a merchant manner, and whether a lawyer's act of performing legal representation and providing legal advisory services is a commercial activity.

(2) First, the circumstance that business registration is made and value-added tax is paid and the relationship between merchant's performance

Value-added tax is imposed on the supply of goods and services or on the import of goods (Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act), and a person who supplies goods and services, regardless of the existence of profit-making profit, is obligated to pay value-added tax (Article 2 of the same Act), and a business operator under the same Act must make business registration (Article 5 of the same Act). Therefore, an attorney-at-law has registered his/her business in order to supply services as legal counsel and legal counsel services as an attorney-at-law and paid value-added tax shall not be allowed to become a merchant (Article 5 of the same Act).

(3) Second, limit of merchant nature under the Attorney-at-Law Act

An attorney-at-law is a so-called specialist with professional knowledge and knowledge, and the society (law) provides that only those persons recognized as having certain knowledge and skills through strict examination are entitled to perform such duties and punish them to perform such duties. This aims at protecting the public interest of those engaged in the professional, rather than to protect the interests of those engaged in the professional, the society (law) may limit profit-making nature at the request of a certain professional, at the request of a public interest in return for guaranteeing the exclusive status of those engaged in the professional. Because of the public interest of a certain degree, profit-making nature is not a problem of legislative policy. The attorney-at-law who is called a special law in relation to the Commercial Act provides that an attorney-at-law who is not a special law shall defend basic human rights and realize social justice (Article 1), that an employee is freely engaged in such duties, and that an employee is not a director or an attorney-at-law who is not a person engaged in commercial activities but a person who is not an attorney-at-law with the purpose of registration or administrative disposition of a certain person (Article 2).

Therefore, when a person qualified as a lawyer registers as a lawyer to the extent that he/she performs his/her duties as a lawyer, he/she shall not engage in commercial activities and the lawyer shall not be a merchant. If a lawyer intends to engage in commercial or profit-making activities other than that of a lawyer, he/she shall obtain permission from the local bar association to which he/she belongs or suspend his/her duties (Article 38 (3) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

3. Conclusion

The fact that the legal service business among those described in the applicant's business at the time of applying for registration of the trade name in this case that the applicant's business means the performance of the applicant's duties as an attorney-at-law is not a commercial activity. The fact that the applicant's duty as an attorney-at-law cannot be a commercial activity, and that the applicant's remaining business is an incumbent attorney-at-law who is registered and operated by the applicant. Thus, at the time of applying for registration of the trade name in this case, the applicant submitted data that the applicant obtained permission from the local bar association to which he belongs for profit-making activities. Thus, the registration officer's rejection of

Therefore, the applicant's objection shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Song-dae