[1] The meaning of "appraisal" under Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] The case holding that the act of appraisal of defects conducted as part of the provision of data necessary for the damages claim against the apartment construction project owner by apartment residents constitutes "appraisal" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[3] The meaning of "agent" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and whether it constitutes "agent" under the same Article where an apartment resident who entered into a contract for appraisal services of defects filed by him/her with him/her to prepare a litigation document and a criminal complaint and explain the defective contents by participating in the on-site inspection of the full bench (affirmative)

[1] The "appraisal" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be understood as the form of handling legal affairs conducted for the settlement of disputes or discussions in general in cases where there is a dispute or doubt with respect to rights and obligations under the law, or where there is a new relationship of rights and obligations. Therefore, the "appraisal" shall be excluded from the act of making a judgment on specific matters based on professional knowledge under the law and based on expert knowledge other than the law.

[2] The case holding that the act of appraisal of defects conducted as part of the provision of data necessary for the damages claim against the apartment construction project owner by apartment residents constitutes "appraisal" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[3] Since Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act includes cases where an agent is actually involved in a legal case on behalf of the person in question, the act of the defendant to prepare a litigation document and a criminal complaint and participate in the on-site inspection of the adjudication division for the apartment resident in the litigation case filed by the apartment resident who entered into a contract for appraisal of defects with the defendant constitutes an act of explaining the defect by participating in the on-site inspection of the adjudication division, even though the attorney of the apartment resident was separately appointed in the litigation case, it constitutes a case of actual participation in a specific litigation case on behalf of the apartment

[1] Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [2] Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [3] Article 90 subparag. 2 of

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Do3453 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1369) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Do98 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1195) Supreme Court Decision 95Do1244 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 171)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon

Seoul District Court Decision 96No8575 delivered on January 15, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts against the rules of evidence

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendant, who is a non-indicted corporation, committed an act in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as stated in its judgment, is just and there is no illegality of misconception

In addition, since the parties to a contract for appraisal of defects are non-indicted corporation, it does not regard the subject of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as the corporation above.

We cannot accept these arguments in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

"Appraisal" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be understood as one form of handling legal affairs conducted for the resolution of disputes or discussions in general in cases where there is a dispute or doubt with respect to legal rights and duties, or in the occurrence of new rights and duties relations. Therefore, "Appraisal" shall be excluded from those based on professional knowledge and expertise other than law, and it shall be excluded from those based on expert knowledge and expertise other than law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do3453, Feb. 14, 1995).

However, according to the record, the defendant lectures against the occupants of each apartment of this case about the procedure for damages compensation and the preparation of a complaint against the occupants of the apartment of this case before and after the conclusion of the contract for appraisal of defects with the occupants of the apartment of this case (the investigation record 365, 367, 372, 521 pages, etc.), and makes an advertisement to the effect that the defendant executes the work of calculating the amount of damages due to the defect's color and defect as actual expenses as well as the technical and legal procedure to make the occupants win the lawsuit for damages (the investigation record 368, 374, 397 pages, etc.) so that the occupants of this case can win the lawsuit for damages (the investigation record 1 right 368, 374, 397 pages, etc.). Further, each apartment of this case is expected to have a more specialized legal assistance from the defendant in connection with the performance of the lawsuit for damages against the owner of apartment construction, and requested the defendant to provide the service for the defect appraisal of the apartment of this case.

In addition, considering the above circumstances, considering that the details of defective construction and the amount of damages caused by the fraudulent construction in the ordinary damages claim lawsuit, barring special circumstances, the defendant's appraisal of the defect in this case is a significant material for calculating the amount of damages in the court, it is reasonable to see that the defendant's appraisal of the defect in this case is concurrently a defendant's legal opinion opinion about the amount of damages that can be claimed by the residents of the future apartment based on the legal knowledge based on the experience of the defendant's building in specific legal cases as well as the nature as a judgment based on the expertise in the construction of the defendant's building, and that the defendant's appraisal of the defect in this case constitutes a "appraisal" under Article 90

In addition, since Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act includes cases where the defendant is actually involved in legal cases on behalf of himself/herself, the act of preparing litigation documents and criminal complaints as stated in the judgment of the court below for the plaintiffs with respect to the litigation case filed by apartment residents who entered into a contract for appraisal of defects with the defendant, and explaining the defective details by participating in the on-site verification of the trial division on behalf of the plaintiffs constitutes the above act of representation because the defendant actually participated in specific litigation cases on behalf of the plaintiffs, even though he/she was appointed separately by the attorney of the court, and even if the defendant did not receive the compensation separately for such act, the monetary compensation for such act is already comprehensively included in the cost of the defect appraisal service that the defendant received or agreed to receive from the occupants of the first apartment house on behalf of him/her. The same shall apply to the case where the defendant provided legal counseling to the occupants of the apartment with respect to general legal cases as stated in the judgment of the court and received it separately.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law

The argument that legal counseling activities, etc. conducted by the defendant do not go against social norms is rejected as it is based on the premise that the defendant has not been paid the price.

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are rejected.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal on Defendant’s best container

In light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is just and there is no illegality such as violating the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the establishment of

The defendant is a member of the council of occupants' representatives who is a party to the lawsuit and not treated otherwise.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)