logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.02.06 2013고정2299
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

Defendants are innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is a licensed real estate agent operating the “F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” located in the Ministry Population E in Young-si, and Defendant B works as a brokerage assistant at the above licensed real estate agent office.

Defendant

B around July 2011, the Defendant, at the said real estate brokerage office, arranged a sales contract between G and I with respect to the area of 544 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the wife population H in G-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

Around July 22, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant, on the instant land, the wife of I, was the area equivalent to 305 square meters of the instant land consisting of a steep slope, and did not inform the Defendant of the fact that it was made up of the area equivalent to 305 square meters of the instant land.” The Defendant stated to the effect that “The instant land is a trade site with the boundary that connects the reduction between trees and trees, and the area is 544 square meters of the instant land.”

As a result, the defendant caused the judgement of the client by false words and behavior on important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage.

B. Defendant A, a brokerage assistant of the Defendant, performed false words and conducts concerning important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage as referred to in the above paragraph (a) with respect to the Defendant’s business, thereby causing the client’s judgment.

2. Determination:

A. During the process of mediating a sales contract for the instant land between Defendants B and I, the Defendants presented a cadastral map copy to J, the buyer’s agent, and properly explained the current status of the boundary, etc. of the instant land. The Defendants consistently changed from the investigative agency to this court, where there was no false representation on the buyer’s side as to important transaction matters, such as boundary, etc., as indicated in the facts charged.

B. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof, and the conviction is true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge.

arrow