공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received KRW 7.2 million from the tenant I, among the KRW 10 million, from the tenant I, 7.2 million, from the tenant in accordance with the rental practice of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F commercial building (hereinafter “F commercial building”), and 2.8 million won is paid from both the tenant, not the intermediary fee, but the intermediary fee, and 3.5 million won received from the tenant K, and 3.5 million won received from the tenant K and the honorarium for receiving the premium. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant received the intermediary fee as prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”), and the Report of Real Estate Transactions, and the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”), but the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to the brokerage fee prescribed by the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.
2. Determination:
A. According to the records on the part of the Plaintiff’s receipt of relay fees from the lessee, the Defendant, on October 1, 201, entered the Plaintiff as KRW 50 million in the lease agreement of KRW 3,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
The broker is not only 3.6 million won of brokerage commission to be borne by I but also 3.6 million won of brokerage commission to be paid by the lessor H as a lump sum. ① Article 20(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act is the client for the brokerage object other than the housing under Article 32(3) of the same Act.