All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The obligation to confirm and explain the object of brokerage under Article 25 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act arises when the brokerage has been completed. In this case, since I (F in the lease contract) merely pretended to enter into a lease contract without the intention of the actual contract for the purpose of crackdown, it cannot be said that the brokerage has been completed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the premise of the occurrence of the above obligation cannot be deemed to have caused the defendant's obligation to verify and explain the object of brokerage.

B. Defendant B merely assisted the preparation of a contract under the supervision and supervision of A, a licensed real estate agent, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have arranged a lease contract.

2. Determination

A. According to relevant regulations and legal principles, Article 19(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, a practicing licensed real estate agent shall not allow another person to engage in brokerage business using his/her name or trade name. Brokerage business refers to the brokerage business between the parties to a transaction regarding an object of brokerage, such as sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, or modification of rights. On the other hand, in light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at protecting the parties to the transaction, the determination of which act constitutes brokerage shall be made based on whether the act of the broker is objectively deemed as an act for brokerage and mediation by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3090, Jul. 26, 2007). Brokerage business does not include not only cases where the parties to the transaction requested brokerage from both parties to the transaction, but also cases where the broker mediates or mediates the sale, exchange, lease, or other acts of the object of brokerage at the request of one party to the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do68512).