Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Brokering under Article 7 requires mediating between the parties
Supreme Court, July 25, 2024, 2024Da229466 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 용역비
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a refinancing consulting contract under which the contractor provides conveniences to the client in matters connected with the duties of financial institution employees, and receives a fee for that, amount to receiving money for brokering matters within those duties under Article 7 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, so that the contract is void under Article 103 of the Civil Act?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held that 'brokering' in Article 7 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes means standing between people to mediate or to procure convenience in a given matter, so that money or other benefit must be received in the name of mediating between the person who commissioned the brokering and the financial institution employee who could be its counterpart. Where the contractor merely provides the client with convenience in matters connected with the employees' duties and receives money for that alone, that is not receipt of money for brokering, and the contract was not void for that reason. The judgment below was reversed and the case sent back to the Seoul High Court.
Points at issue, verbatim
단순히 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속하는 사항과 관련하여 알선의뢰인에게 편의를 제공하고 그 대가로서 금품을 수수하였을 뿐인 경우, 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 금품을 수수한 것이라고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in a case where a person merely provided conveniences to the person who requested the intermediation in connection with matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution and received money or valuables as a consideration therefor, it may be regarded that the person received money or valuables in connection with intermediation of matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution (negative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
적어도 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속한 사항에 관하여 알선을 의뢰한 사람(알선의뢰인)과 알선의 상대방이 될 수 있는 금융기관의 임직원(알선상대방) 사이를 중개한다는 명목으로 금품 기타 이익을 수수하는 경우라야 하는 것이지
Unofficial English translation
it must be a case where money or other benefits are received at least under the name of brokering between a person who requested intermediation (the requesting person) in matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution and the officer or employee of the financial institution who may become the counterpart to the intermediation (the counterpart), and
Factors
- 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제7조에서 말하는 ‘알선’의 의미
- 단순히 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속하는 사항과 관련하여 알선의뢰인에게 편의를 제공하고 그 대가로서 금품을 수수하였을 뿐인 경우
- 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 금품을 수수한 것이라고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• The meaning of "intermediation" as used in Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
• In a case where a person merely provided conveniences to the person who requested the intermediation in connection with matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution and received money or valuables as a consideration therefor
• Whether it may be regarded that the person received money or valuables in connection with intermediation of matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 8. 19. 선고 2005도3045 판결(공2005하, 1536), 대법원 2008. 1. 31. 선고 2007도8117 판결(공2008상, 342)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045 decided August 19, 2005 (Gong 2005 Ha, 1536), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 decided January 31, 2008 (Gong 2008 Sang, 342)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2005. 8. 19. 선고 2005도3045 판결(공2005하, 1536), 대법원 2008. 1. 31. 선고 2007도8117 판결(공2008상, 342)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the contractor's assigned work includes resolving complaints for the client, so that it must ask financial institution employees to handle matters, at what point does that request cross from providing convenience into mediating between the parties?
The Seoul High Court's judgment on remand, once it re-examines the contract and the work performed under the standard set here, would show how the line is drawn in this case. A later decision revising the meaning of brokering under Article 7 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, or an amendment to that Article, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The standard form differs: the primary reading states the legal meaning of brokering as a requirement, while the independent reading applies the requirement to the facts to find no intermediation.
단순히 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속하는 사항과 관련하여 알선의뢰인에게 편의를 제공하고 그 대가로서 금품을 수수하였을 뿐인 경우, 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 금품을 수수한 것이라고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 29 February 2024 (2023Na2025535), held that the service contract of 29 November 2021, under which the plaintiff was to receive a fee of KRW 300 million excluding value-added tax for refinancing consulting, included an agreement to receive money for brokering matters within the duties of employees of financial companies. It therefore held that the contract violated Article 7 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, or at least ran counter to that Act's legislative purpose, and was void as a legal act contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that brokering requires mediating between the commissioning party and the financial institution employee who could be the counterpart, and that where the contractor merely provided the client with convenience in matters connected with the employees' duties and was paid for that alone, that is not receipt of money for brokering. On the record, the plaintiff's work was selecting second-priority beneficiaries and negotiating with each lender, introducing an asset manager, having a new appraisal carried out, comparing loan and investment conditions, passing on documents and coordinating site inspections and review schedules, using professional knowledge to assist the defendant. The contract contained no clause of direct and proactive contact with financial institution employees or solicitation through personal connections, networks or influence, and no evidence of any special position or influence was submitted, so the record was insufficient to find that the contract included an act of brokering. The Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on brokering under Article 7 and on Article 103 of the Civil Act in a way that affected the judgment, and reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A contract obliging the contractor to approach financial institution employees directly and proactively, or to solicit them by using personal connections, networks or influence over them.
- Money received in the name of mediating between the commissioning party and the financial institution employee, so that the contractor stands between them in matters within the employee's duties.
- Evidence that the contractor held a position able to influence the participating financial institutions' fund-raising or the speedy progress of the related procedures, or actually exercised such influence.
Record verification notes
Set the service contract's own terms against the work actually performed, since the Court read the two together: look for any clause requiring direct contact with financial institution employees, and for proof that such contact took place. Then separate the fee for consulting assistance from any payment made for standing between the parties, and check whether anything in the file shows a special position or influence over the lenders.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제7조에서 말하는 ‘알선’의 의미 / 단순히 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속하는 사항과 관련하여 알선의뢰인에게 편의를 제공하고 그 대가로서 금품을 수수하였을 뿐인 경우, 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 금품을 수수한 것이라고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of "intermediation" as used in Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / Whether, in a case where a person merely provided conveniences to the person who requested the intermediation in connection with matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution and received money or valuables as a consideration therefor, it may be regarded that the person received money or valuables in connection with intermediation of matters falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제7조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger