Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a corporation that vicariously manages real estate such as real estate brokerage business, commercial buildings and housing rental management.

On January 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for 15 days from January 31, 2019 to February 14, 2019, based on Article 39(1)14 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act (amended by Act No. 17453, Jun. 9, 2020; hereinafter “former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff delayed filing of the report of his/her employment and thus violated Article 15(1) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

The defendant sent to the plaintiff on June 11, 2019.

Pursuant to Article 38(1)7 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, the registration of establishment of the real estate brokerage office of the Plaintiff was revoked (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that he/she rendered brokerage services during the period of suspension of business under this paragraph.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the whole purport of the pleading are as shown in the attached Form of the law.

On February 20, 2020, the Plaintiff changed the name of February 20, 202 to B, from “stock company B” to “D,” the representative director was deleted from the business of real estate brokerage and changed to real estate development business, real estate rental and supply business, etc. for the purpose of the corporation. The changed representative director D is operating after registering the establishment of another real estate brokerage corporation.

The former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act provides that a practicing licensed real estate agent cannot conduct brokerage business after filing a double registration of the establishment of a brokerage office. Thus, even if the disposition of this case is revoked, the Plaintiff may not register the establishment as a real estate broker.

Therefore, since there is no benefit from the protection of rights, the Defendant’s lawsuit of this case should be dismissed due to “non-disqualification of the Plaintiff,” it is decided that the lawsuit of this case would dispute the benefit from the protection of rights in light of the substance and purport of the assertion (prestigious document dated June 8, 202

It is unlawful.

. Determination.