The legislative intent of Article 22(1) of the Certified Public Accountant Act and the validity of an agreement made in violation of the above provision (=negative)

Article 22(1) of the Certified Public Accountant Act provides that "no certified public accountant shall allow another person to perform the functions of certified public accountant using his name or trade name or lend his registration certificate to another person." Article 53(3)2 provides that a person who violates this provision shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won. The legislative intent of the above provision is to strictly limit a person who has expertise and professional ethics with respect to accounting-related affairs to a person who is qualified as a certified public accountant with professional and professional ethics, thereby protecting the rights and interests of interested persons, by securing expertise, fairness and credibility in accounting-related affairs, and by inducing sound management of enterprises, thereby ultimately promoting the development of national economy.

In addition to such legislative intent, the act of a certified public accountant lending his name to another person constitutes a criminal act subject to criminal punishment, and it is difficult to readily accept by social norms in light of the property rights of the people who can be subject to criminal punishment and the adverse impact on the sound management of enterprises and the growth of the national economy. The mere criminal punishment for an offense is required to establish a certified public accountant system, thereby ensuring the fairness and reliability of accounting-related affairs and ultimately prevent the Certified Public Accountant Act enacted for the purpose of enhancing the transparency of enterprises from falling short of the invalidation of the Certified Public Accountant Act, and ultimately, from which economic benefits from an offense accrue. In full view of the above legislative intent, the above provision constitutes a mandatory law to protect the rights and interests of the people who will result in a case where a person, other than a certified public accountant, performs accounting-related affairs,

Certified Public Accountant Act Articles 22(1) and 53(3)2

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 2011Na6978 decided September 2, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 22(1) of the Certified Public Accountant Act provides that “No certified public accountant shall have another person perform the functions of certified public accountant using his name or trade name, nor lend his registration certificate to another person.” Article 53(3)2 provides that where a certified public accountant violates this, he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won. The legislative purport of the provision is to strictly limit a person who is qualified as a certified public accountant with expertise and professional ethics and to protect the rights and interests of persons with expertise, fairness and credibility in accounting-related affairs, thereby inducing the sound management of companies, thereby ultimately promoting the development of national economy.

In addition to such legislative intent, the act of a certified public accountant lending his name to another person constitutes a criminal act subject to criminal punishment, and it is difficult to readily accept by social norms in light of social norms in light of the property rights of the people and the adverse impact on the sound management of enterprises and the growth of the national economy. The mere criminal punishment for such violation is not sufficient to ensure fairness and reliability of accounting-related affairs by establishing a certified public accountant system and ultimately prevent the loss of the Certified Public Accountant Act enacted for the purpose of securing corporate transparency, and ultimately, from which economic benefits from such violation accrue, the above provision constitutes a mandatory law to protect the rights and interests of the people that may arise when a person, other than a certified public accountant, carries out accounting-related affairs and to prevent serious risks to the sound management of enterprises and the development of the national economy. Accordingly, the agreement made in violation of this provision shall be null

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the contract of this case was null and void as a juristic act in violation of Article 22 (1) of the Certified Public Accountant Act, which is a mandatory law, since the contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, who was a certified public accountant operating a separate accounting office in the racing-si, as well as the defendant who was operating a separate accounting office in Seoul, for the purpose of opening and maintaining the office of this case at the time of the original adjudication at the time when the defendant was located in the Posi-si, and the plaintiff is responsible for managing and operating the office of this case as a representative of the non-party who is not a certified public accountant.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Certified Public Accountant Act and the validity of violation of mandatory law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to state reasons.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)