beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.07.23 2015구합443

업무정지처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While the Plaintiff is running a real estate brokerage business with the trade name “C” in Pluju-si, Cheongju-si, the Plaintiff was commissioned by the person E to sell D’s real estate (hereinafter “seller”) for sale of the F farm site of 3,355 square meters and G farm site of 2,265 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the instant land on July 26, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant contract”); (b) prepared the sales contract for real estate with D as the seller’s agent, E and Plaintiff as the seller’s agent, and the Plaintiff signed a signature on the seller’s agent’s agent column; and (c) the buyer signed a signature on the buyer’s agent column as well as the buyer signed a signature on the sales contract for the said contract. (b) the intermediate payment is paid in August 29, 2014; and (c) the remainder is paid in September 15, 2014.

C. On July 26, 2014, the buyer remitted the down payment of KRW 2 million to the seller. D.

Since then, the seller demanded the buyer to additionally pay the down payment by asserting that the purchase price of KRW 16 million, which is 10% of the purchase price, is the down payment, but the buyer failed to comply with it. On August 22, 2014, the buyer notified the buyer that the purchase and sale contract for the instant land was terminated, and on October 30, 2014, the buyer filed a lawsuit against the seller seeking damages for termination of the contract with the Cheongju District Court 2014Ga30319.

E. A seller filed a complaint with the Cheongju Police Station on the charge of violating the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Act”). The Cheongju Police Station shall, based on the investigation results, have the Defendant breached the duty to explain the confirmation of the object of brokerage and the duty to sign and seal the transaction contract.