logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.26 2014노7807
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, acted as a broker for the instant sales contract by directly preparing and sealing the sales contract so that the parties to the transaction may accurately reflect the contents of the contract, the Defendant did not allow F to render brokerage services using the name or trade name of the Defendant.

The sentencing (one million won of fine) of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Article 19(1) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”) provides that “a broker shall neither have another person render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name, nor transfer or lend his/her brokerage office registration certificate to another person.” Article 49(1)7 of the same Act provides that “a person who, in violation of Article 19, allows another person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name or transfers or lends his/her brokerage office registration certificate to another person” shall be punished.

In this context, the term "intermediationing transactions, exchanges, leases and other rights between the parties to a transaction on the object of brokerage" (Article 2 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act). Whether an unqualified person has performed the business of a licensed real estate agent or not should be determined according to whether an unqualified person actually performs the business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent without examining whether the licensed real estate agent was actually engaged in the business of the licensed real estate agent or not.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged.

After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the parties thereto.

arrow