The meaning of "unfair exercise of a certificate of qualification, etc." under Article 37 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act

Article 37 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorneys Kim Ho-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu17287 decided June 5, 2013

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 3

According to Article 37(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “Act”), an appraisal business entity (including a certified public appraiser belonging to an appraisal corporation) shall not transfer or lend a certificate of qualification, registration certificate, or authorization (hereinafter “certificate of qualification, etc.”) to, or may not exercise it unfairly. Here, “unfair exercise of a certificate, etc.” includes exercise of a certified public appraiser’s license, etc. for any purpose other than its original purpose, or exercise it for a purpose other than its original purpose, or exercise it for a purpose other than its original purpose to avoid the legal regulation on the qualification or scope of business of a certified public appraiser

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below is just to have determined that the plaintiff, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the adopted evidence, was not performing the appraiser's main duties under the appraisal corporation of this case, as well as the operation of the appraisal corporation of this case without involvement in the operation of the appraisal corporation of this case, and the plaintiff's exercise of his qualification certificate, etc. for this purpose constitutes an unlawful exercise of qualification certificate, etc. under Article 37 (2) of the Act as an abuse of the appraiser's qualification system and the appraisal corporation's qualification system. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof and the scope of application under Article 37 (2) of the Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in general, in administrative legal relations, the court below held that in order to apply the principle of protection of trust to an administrative agency's act, the administrative agency first must express the public opinion that was the subject of trust to an individual. However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have expressed the defendant's public opinion as to the unlawful exercise of appraiser's qualification certificate merely because the defendant did not take a disciplinary measure against a certified public appraiser who was formally recorded in an appraisal corporation while working in a financial institution. Furthermore, in full view of the circumstances as stated in the judgment below, the disposition of this case was conducted in consideration of the improper exercise period of qualification certificate, etc., the period of receiving money, the degree of unfair use of the appraiser's qualification certificate, etc., and it

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of trust protection or proportionality

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)