The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: There is a fact that the defendant by mistake of facts has received each auction fee from F and I;

However, the defendant simply provided consultation on the auction bidding, and received the fee from F and I, and there is no fact that he acted as an agent for the auction bidding.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as acting as an agent for the non-contentious case is erroneous.

2. The phrase "agent" under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act includes an act necessary to use legal knowledge on behalf of the principal, or an act that actually leads to the handling of a case on behalf of the principal with no legal knowledge or with the lead of the handling of the case on behalf of the principal, which actually creates the same effect as the actual act of representation without the form of representation, by taking the lead of the

For those who desire to award a real estate subject to auction, it is practically called "agent" under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 90 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act to act on behalf of an auction by participating in all auction process except for submission of a bid list by stating and submitting a bid list.

In full view of all the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below’s judgment on November 13, 2002, 2002, the fact that the defendant is entitled to receive the price as a consulting for real estate auction, and that the defendant is actually represented by F and I’s auction bid and received the remuneration in the auction case, which is a non-contentious case, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

3...