In cases where a licensed customs broker agreed to receive some of the customs clearance fees and received an agreed amount after introducing or arranging services to such licensed customs broker, whether a violation of Article 3(2) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act is established (affirmative)

A person, other than a licensed customs broker, agrees with a licensed customs broker to receive an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the customs clearance fees that he/she receives from the parties to the services provided by such licensed customs broker, and provides such services to such licensed customs broker, and then receives the agreed amount shall be in violation of Article 3 (2) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act. In such cases, the act of providing such services shall not be treated differently on the ground that the person engaged in providing the services provided by the licensed customs broker or

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2597 delivered on April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 543) Supreme Court Decision 86Do1720 Delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 272) Supreme Court Decision 99Do2491 Delivered on September 7, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2148)

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants

Busan District Court Decision 99No2378 delivered on November 4, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A person, other than a licensed customs broker, agrees with a licensed customs broker to receive an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the customs clearance fees that he/she provides, as a result, to introduce and arrange the services to such licensed customs broker, and then receiving the agreed amount shall conflict with Article 3(2) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act. In such cases, the act of introducing and arranging such services does not conflict with Article 3(2) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act, provided that the act of receiving the agreed amount was conducted by either a licensed customs broker who accepts the services or by receiving the said fees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1720, Dec. 23, 198; 9Do2491, Sept. 7, 19

Examining the records in the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendants' office of non-indicted 1, a licensed customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, introduced or arranged customs clearance fees in a way that deducts the amount equivalent to a certain percentage of customs clearance fees in advance and the remaining customs clearance fees from the above non-indicted 1 in return for introducing or arranging the customs clearance fees of the above non-indicted 1, a licensed customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, a licensed customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, a licensed customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, a customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, a customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, a customs broker's office of non-indicted 1, the defendant 2, a customs broker's office of non-indicted 36,695,629, defendant 4, a customs broker's non-indicted 292,460,85, and the remaining customs clearance fees were paid thereafter.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)