beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. No certified broker of facts charged shall allow another person to render brokerage services using his/her name;
Nevertheless, Defendant A, located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D Authorized Brokerage Office” on December 30, 2016, through the brokerage of real estate transactions with “Seoul Gangnam-gu E and No. 101 per parcel,” Defendant A had F, the cause of the brokerage, F, as he/she completed, perform the real estate transaction brokerage business of G, as he/she was a certified broker A.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence adopted and examined in this court, G and H entered into a sales contract with regard to the first floor of multi-household housing No. 101 on December 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purchase price of KRW 900,000,000 on the first floor, Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and 1 parcel of land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant did not enter into the instant sales contract at the site of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the fact that the said F explained the instant sales contract to the said G, etc. is recognized.
B. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant, as an authorized broker, was running real estate brokerage business under the name of "D Authorized Brokerage Office", and F was registered as an affiliated broker of the above D Authorized Brokerage Office from November 12, 2015 to October 12, 2017. The contract of this case was prepared by the defendant, and the contract of this case was entered as "A" in the certified broker column of the above contract, and the act of the certified broker assistant is deemed as the act of the certified broker who employed him (Article 15 (2) of the Official Brokerage Act). Thus, since the act of the certified broker assistant is deemed as the act of the certified broker who employed him (Article 15 (2) of the Official Brokerage Act), the rights and duties arising from various business performed by the brokerage assistant F who belongs to the defendant for the mediation of the contract of this case are attributed to the defendant, and ultimately, the mediation of this case was conducted by the defendant with the F's subsidy.
It is reasonable to see that the defendant is F.