The meaning of "act of allowing any third person to render the services of certified architect by using his name" as provided for in Article 10 of the Certified Architects Act.

In light of the fact that the legislative purpose of the Certified Architects Act is to promote the qualitative improvement of a building by prescribing strict requirements for the qualifications of an architect and matters concerning his/her services, and in order to achieve this purpose, the provisions of the Certified Architects Act, the essential and core contents of which are prohibition of engaging in design or construction supervision of a building exceeding a certain size, shall include not only cases where an architect actively solicits or instructs another person to engage in the services of an architect using his/her name, but also cases where an architect consenteds or permits another person to engage in the services of an architect by using his/her name, with the knowledge of the fact that no architect is allowed to engage in design or construction supervision of a building exceeding a certain size.

Article 10 of the Certified Architects Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh-young

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004No716 delivered on June 24, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

In light of the fact that the legislative purpose of the Certified Architects Act is to promote the qualitative improvement of a building by prescribing strict requirements for the qualifications of a certified architect and matters concerning his/her services, and in order to achieve this purpose, the provisions of the Certified Architects Act, the essential and core contents of which are that a certified architect is not able to engage in design or construction supervision of a building in excess of a certain size, shall include not only cases where a certified architect has actively recommended or instructed another person to engage in the business of a certified architect by using his/her name, but also cases where a certified architect has consented or allowed to engage in the business of a certified architect by using his/her name, with the knowledge of the fact that a certified architect is not able to engage in design or construction supervision of a building in excess of a certain size.

In full view of these evidences, the court below recognized that the defendant was aware that the non-indicted person consented to or understood the non-indicted person's business by using the defendant's name, and recognized that the defendant was in violation of the Certified Architects Act. This decision of the court below is justified in light of the records and the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 10 of the Certified Architects Act or

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)