All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) Defendant B prepared a description of confirmation of the object of brokerage, sales contract, etc. in advance and leaves the first place of the appeal; (b) Defendant A only obtained the signature and seal of the said document from the customer on behalf of Defendant B; and (c) Defendant B lent a licensed real estate agent’s license to Defendant A to use the document by borrowing it.

2. The phrase “loan of a licensed real estate agent’s license” prohibited under Articles 49(1)1 and 7 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 11866, Jun. 4, 2013) refers to the lending of a licensed real estate agent’s license itself even though he/she knows other person to engage in the business of the licensed real estate agent by using his/her qualification certificate and intends to engage in the business of the licensed real estate agent. Whether an unqualified person performs the business of the licensed real estate agent should be determined according to whether the unqualified person actually performs the business of the licensed real estate agent by using the name of the licensed real estate agent, regardless of whether the licensed real estate agent

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007) revealed that Defendant B directly performed the brokerage business, even though it was in full view of the following circumstances.

Even in the case of the transaction in which Defendant A had sexual intercourse, at least, Defendant A had the form of performing the real estate agent's duties directly by allowing Defendant A to affix his seal on the written contract prepared by Defendant A with sexual intercourse, and in substance, Defendant B lent his licensed real estate agent's license to Defendant A and borrowed and used Defendant A. Therefore, the Defendants' assertion is without merit.

(1) From December 2, 2011 to June 2012.