[부동산중개업법위반][집38(1)형,633;공1990.4.1.(869),702]
Whether an act of trading or arranging a specific apartment to be constructed in the future constitutes a trade or brokerage of a deed, etc. related to the sale or purchase of real estate in violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (negative)
The "building" stipulated as object of brokerage in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act includes not only the existing building but also the building to be constructed in the future. Thus, the act of selecting a specific building or lake as the buyer of an apartment house or mediating the sale and purchase of a specific apartment after the contract for sale is concluded shall not be deemed as a brokerage of the building which is object of brokerage, and it shall not be deemed as a brokerage of the sale and purchase of certificates, etc. related to the sale of a real estate which is related to the sale of a real estate which is not a real estate broker under Article 15 subparagraph 4 of
Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act and Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the same Article;
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No7672 delivered on July 13, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
According to Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, the "building" is stipulated as a object of brokerage of real estate brokers. Meanwhile, according to Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, a real estate broker's act shall not be a real estate broker, and the act of arranging, arranging, arranging, or buying and selling of certificates, etc. related to the sale, lease, etc. of real estate is stipulated as a business, and the "building" defined as a object of brokerage is deemed to include not only the existing building but also the building to be constructed in the future. Thus, as in the case of this case, it shall be deemed that a specific Dong and building of apartment, the act of selecting the unit as the buyer or mediating the sale and purchase of a specific apartment after the sale contract is concluded, and it shall not be deemed as a brokerage of the sale and purchase of certificates, etc. related to the sale and purchase of real estate. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as such.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)