The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that a person allows another person to engage in brokerage services using his/her name, transfers or lends his/her certificate of qualification as a certified broker, or is not subject to acquisition or lease of another person’s certificate of qualification as a certified broker, the Defendant, around December 2014, lent his/her certificate of qualification as a certified broker from Busan Northern-gu, Busan, to E, and had the said E perform brokerage services by using his/her name as a “F Authorized broker”.

2. The term “loan of a certificate of an authorized broker or a brokerage registration certificate” prohibited by Article 49(1)1 and 7 of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act refers to the lending of a certificate or registration certificate itself to another person, knowing that he/she is willing to carry out the business of a certified broker by using his/her certificate of qualification or registration.

Therefore, even in cases where an authorized broker takes part in the management of a brokerage office which has completed registration under the name of the authorized broker, or invests funds and distributes profits therefrom, if the authorized broker does not have the authorized broker carry out real estate transaction brokerage which is the business of the certified broker and has the qualification holder carry out the business of the certified broker, it cannot be said that the certified broker has lent the certificate of qualification or registration certificate.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do442, Nov. 15, 2012; 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007; 99Do1519, Jan. 18, 2000). In this case, the prosecutor examined the instant case.