According to Article 37(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “Act”), an appraisal business entity (including a certified public appraiser belonging to an appraisal corporation) shall not transfer or lend his/her qualification certificate, registration certificate, or authorization certificate (hereinafter “qualification certificate, etc.”) to, or may not exercise it unfairly. Here, “unfair exercise of a qualification certificate, etc.” includes exercise of a certified public appraiser’s qualification certificate, etc. for any purpose other than its original purpose, or exercise it for a purpose other than its original purpose, or exercise it for a purpose other than its original purpose to avoid the legal regulation on the qualification of an appraisal

Therefore, although an appraiser submitted a copy of his certificate of appraiser registration to the Korea Appraisal Association under the pretext of joining the appraisal corporation as well as his certificate of appraiser registration, in fact, the appraisal experience of the appraiser was recognized unfairly. On the other hand, the appraisal corporation only composed of the appearance belonging to the appraisal corporation for the purpose of having an affiliated appraisal corporation formally have only the number of appraisers necessary for the establishment and existence of the appraisal business or obtaining an additional allocation of the appraisal volume from the court, and without any intent to perform the appraisal business as an appraiser affiliated with the appraisal corporation or other business closely related thereto, it can be deemed that the appraiser registration certificate was used for the purpose of avoiding the regulation of the law on the qualification or scope of business of the appraisal business entity beyond the original purpose of exercising the appraisal registration certificate.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below presumed that the "unfair exercise of qualification certificate, etc." under Article 37 (2) of the Act means the exercise of qualification certificate, etc. for a purpose other than its original purpose. The plaintiff's appraisal experience is unfairly recognized as well as the plaintiff's appraiser's qualification pocketbook or appraiser's registration certificate in order to maintain work experience in an appraisal corporation and membership of the appraisal association (hereinafter "affiliated corporation") was a certified appraiser belonging to the Korea Appraisal Corporation only formally by exercising the appraiser's qualification pocketbook or appraiser's registration certificate as a certified appraiser. The plaintiff's act does not lend qualification certificate, etc. itself to another person; it does not allow another person to exercise or exercise qualification certificate, etc.; it does not allow another person to use qualification certificate, etc., and it does not constitute a lending or unjust exercise of qualification certificate, etc. under Article 37 (2) of the Act, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not have any intent to conduct appraisal business in accordance with the direction or request of the corporation belonging to the affiliated corporation; and it does not constitute an abuse of qualification certificate under Article 37 (2) of this case.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s subscription to a affiliated corporation, not for the purpose of performing its business, but for its own appraisal experience, and, on the other hand, used its registration certificate for the purpose of obtaining an additional allocation of the appraisal volume from the court, it constitutes an unlawful exercise of qualification certificates, etc. prohibited under Article 37(2) of the Act. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s use of the registration certificate as its subscription for the purpose of its own exercise is consistent with the original purpose of exercise solely on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having no intent to conduct the appraisal business in accordance with the direction or request of the affiliated corporation, or

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court concluded that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s exercise of its registration certificate under the pretext of joining the affiliated corporation does not constitute an unjust exercise of qualification certificates, etc. prohibited under Article 37(2) of the Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the wrongful exercise of qualification certificates, etc. under the Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)