The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a certified broker who operates the office of "D Official Brokerage" in the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No certified broker shall allow another person to render brokerage services using his/her name, or transfer or lend his/her certificate of qualification to another person.

Nevertheless, at around 12:00 on May 21, 2014, the Defendant lent the Defendant’s certificate of qualification as a certified broker under the name of the Defendant to E, and had E act as an intermediary for the real estate sales contract to sell the 201 building G G building 201, the F-owned, to H for KRW 140 million (hereinafter “the instant real estate” and the said sales contract are referred to as “the instant sales contract”). Accordingly, the Defendant lent the Defendant’s certificate of qualification to E.

Judgment

The term "loan of brokerage office registration certificate" prohibited by Article 49 (1) 7 of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act means that another person knowingly lends his/her certificate of qualification to a certified broker with the knowledge that he/she intends to engage in the business of the certified broker while carrying out the business of the certified broker by using the certificate of registration.

Therefore, if an authorized broker performs real estate transaction brokerage as a business of the authorized broker in his/her brokerage office, it cannot be said that he/she lends his/her certificate of registration to an unqualified broker unless he/she allows an unqualified broker to perform the business of the certified broker.

Whether a single person without qualification has performed his/her duties should be determined based on whether a person without qualification actually performs his/her duties using the name of the certified broker without being asked whether the certified broker was engaged in the form of direct performance of his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007, etc.). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court, the prosecutor submitted the documents.