logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.22 2017고단9036
공인중개사법위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. On July 22, 2016, the Defendants conspired to act as a brokerage assistant belonging to the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D Real Estate” and engaged in the brokerage business without registration, such as making a lease contract between F and G concerning a store located on the first floor of building E located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant store”) at the above D Real Estate Office (hereinafter “instant store”). On July 22, 2016, the Defendants engaged in the brokerage business without opening a store, such as providing a lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rental period of KRW 2 million, and five million, monthly rental period of KRW 2 million, five million, each of which is five million from H and G, under the pretext of the brokerage fee.

2. Determination

1. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion lies only in the fact that the Defendants entered into the instant contract on behalf of the building owner F, not in brokerage of the said contract, and the fact that the former lessee H, etc. received a total of KRW 10 million from the former lessee H, etc. is not a brokerage fee, but a garment for the fact that the instant store was well managed.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the term "mediation" under Article 2 (1) of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act refers to mediating acts concerning the sale and purchase, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction with respect to the object of intermediation, such as land, buildings, and other fixtures on the land, etc., the Defendants entered into a contract on behalf of the lessor in the position of the manager of the instant store rather than acting as a broker for the instant contract. In the process, the amount of KRW 10 million granted by the former lessee H and the new lessee from G was not raised one time while the Defendants were in the position of the manager of the instant store, as well as the process of newly leasing the instant store to G who had been directly engaged in H.

arrow