본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 2016.05.12 2015도5506

All appeals are dismissed.


The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 7 of the former Act on Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions (amended by Act No. 11866, Jun. 4, 2013); “Lending of a qualification certificate of an authorized broker” prohibited under Article 7 of the former Act means lending the qualification certificate itself to another person despite being aware that another person intends to perform his/her duties as a certified broker by using his/her qualification certificate, and whether an unqualified person performs his/her duties as a certified broker must be determined depending on whether he/she actually performs his/her duties by using the name of the certified broker (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do934, Mar. 29, 2007). In full view of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) comprehensively held that Defendant A’s work process; (b) health status of Defendant B; (c) the client; and (d) the client H’s statement; and (b) held that Defendant A directly lent his/her qualification certificate to Defendant A in the contract that he/she directly lends his/her duties to the certified broker; (c.)

The judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged in this case was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, probative value of evidence, and proof of conviction in a criminal judgment.