[2] The case holding that where a company with the purpose of apartment management and defect repair work entered into a lawsuit agreement with the council of occupants' representatives to substitute for a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages on the defect repair of an apartment, and investigated the contents of defects and prepares a defect report as part of the provision of necessary data, the part of the act of calculating the cost of defect repair and preparing a defect report is merely ordinary business of the above company, and it does not constitute "appraisal" under Article 109

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant is the representative director of the New Engineering Co., Ltd. established for the management of the apartment and the repair of the defects (hereinafter only referred to as the "Geongwon apartment"). Despite the fact that the defendant is not an attorney-at-law, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives, the council of occupants' representatives of the Peongcheon-dong, Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-gu-

2. Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the aforementioned facts charged guilty is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of pointing out a debate as to this part of the charges, but the part of "appraisal" among the judgment of the court of first instance is not acceptable for the following reasons.

"Appraisal" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 2000) shall be understood as the form of handling legal affairs conducted to resolve disputes or questions with respect to legal rights and obligations, or with respect to the general public of cases with respect to the creation of new rights and obligations relations. Therefore, the "appraisal" shall be excluded from the act of making a judgment on specific matters on the basis of professional knowledge under law, and based on expert knowledge other than law (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do771, Dec. 24, 199).

According to the records, it can be seen that the defendant's company is the representative director's company for the management of apartment buildings and the repair of defects, and that the defendant conducted a defect inspection and prepared a defect inspection report by calculating the amount of defect repair construction work in order to ascertain the contents of defects in the apartment complex located in the fourth place. Thus, it can be said that chemicalization has expertise and experience in the field of the business so that it can normally be conducted in the course of the business in order to prepare a defect inspection report by investigating and assessing the defects inherent in the building, such as apartment, and expenses necessary for the repair thereof. In such a case, in order to recognize that the preparation of the defect inspection report falls under "legal appraisal", it should include legal judgment or opinion based on the legal knowledge or experience that does not fall under the ordinary business scope of the company, so if the contents of the report are merely an investigation report that the council of occupants' representatives established with the council of occupants' representatives in the judgment of the court below, and if the contents of the report are merely an investigation report ordinarily possible in the course of performing its business, it should not be prepared as part of the provision of the above report.

Unlike the above, the court below held that the defendant's act was a part of the provision of the data necessary for the lawsuit to investigate the defects and prepare a report on the investigation of defects in order to understand the contents of defects under the premise that the defendant made an agreement with the council of occupants' representatives in the fourth apartment area and made a lawsuit as above. Therefore, the above act of the defendant is not only of the nature as a judgment based on the expertise in the construction of the defendant with respect to specific legal cases, but also of the defendant's legal opinion based on the legal knowledge based on the experience as to the defendant's own experience, and it constitutes "appraisal" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. However, such measures of the court below were erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on "appraisal" under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding "appraisal" shall be reversed, and since each part of the above reversal and the remaining part are related to a blanket crime, they shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)