logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.03.22 2017노2208
공인중개사법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict against the Defendant, while receiving money exceeding KRW 5,630,400,000, which is the maximum statutory commission, from F, under the pretext of brokerage commission. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A certified brokerage broker, etc. for the summary of the facts charged shall not receive money or goods in excess of the remuneration or actual cost under Article 32 of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act under any pretext such as case, donation, etc.

The Defendant is a certified broker who operates a certified brokerage office under the name of “D Authorized Brokerage Office” in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Section, and around September 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) under the name of “D Authorized Brokerage Office; and (b) around September 24, 2015, the Defendant arranged a contract for trading the size of 9,917 square meters for KRW 625,60,000 for 625,60,000, and received money from F of the clan to pay KRW 20,000,000 as a commission for brokerage, in excess of the maximum amount of KRW 5,630,40,00 for legal fees.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 20 million from F was a brokerage commission for G, H, I, and J land 9,917 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in all hours, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① In this Court, F, a seller of the instant land, could sell the instant land only after seven to eight years after setting the time to sell the instant land in one time.

Defendant

Other than that, it appears that there was no transaction demand for the land itself.

(2) On September 24, 2015, the F shall be deemed to be the brokerage of the defendant, and shall be owned by K and L, by the clan.

arrow