Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant B: (a) established a disguised company of “G” in the “F Authorized Brokerage Office” (A) in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City E and 115; (b) had the intent to perform the duties of a certified brokerage with a license granted from A; (c) around April 12, 2016, the Defendant arranged a sales contract for the “J building” between H (Buyer) and I (seller) at the “F Authorized Brokerage Office” office; and (d) obtained a license for a certified broker from H and I for the purpose of lending KRW 60 million.

B. Defendant A lent his certificate of qualification to Defendant A as described in the above B B.

2. Determination

(a) “Lending a certificate of qualification as a certified broker” means lending the certificate itself with the knowledge that another person knowingly intends to carry out the duties of a certified broker while carrying out the duties of a certified broker using his/her certificate of qualification.

Therefore, even in cases where an authorized broker takes part in the management of a brokerage office that 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 qualification broker conduct real estate transaction brokerage, which is the business of the certified broker, at the relevant brokerage office, and has the qualification broker conduct the business of the certified broker, it cannot be said that the certified broker lends the qualification 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 a form in which he/she directly performs his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007; 2012Do4542, Nov. 15, 2012).