logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.10.02 2014고단174
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. A person who intends to engage in brokerage business of the substance of the facts charged shall register the establishment of a brokerage office with the head of the registration authority having jurisdiction over an area where he/she intends to establish a brokerage office

Nevertheless, on April 4, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with 900 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) out of 338 square meters and 85,350 square meters of forest land in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gun in the Gu, and

2. The requirements for brokerage business under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act), which means that a broker is engaged in brokerage as a business continuously or continuously. As such, the mere brokerage of transactions between others on an incidental opportunity without repetition, continuity, or business nature is not applicable to brokerage business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1274 delivered on July 23, 1991). However, in a case where a broker is conducted with repeated or continued intention, only one act may be said to be “business”.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act in 2000, and the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act in 2000.

However, the witness J examines the defendant first of all who can purchase each of the lands of this case in this court.

arrow