(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.22 2015고정2011

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.22 2015고정2011

공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No authorized broker, etc. of the opening business shall conduct direct transactions with the client or represent both parties to the transaction.

Nevertheless, around February 28, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the seller, two other than E, and the buyer as the Defendant, for the purchase price of 70 million won, 70 million won, down payment, 63 million won, 63 million won, 63 million won, and 70 million won.

Accordingly, the defendant was directly traded with the client.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made to the defendant in the suspect examination protocol (including H part) of the prosecution against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Second statement statement made to E by the police;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. A written accusation and a written statement of control officials (I);

1. Certificates of each real estate transaction contract, each real estate transaction report, each certificate of completion of the contract, all the registered matters, and each other;

1. The defendant's statement of accounts (the defendant and his defense counsel did not first request the defendant to act as a broker, but did not engage in direct transaction with the client as the broker because he did not request the defendant to act as a broker, and the defendant's act did not constitute a direct transaction with the client because he did not request the defendant to act as a broker, and the defendant had first asked E to sell each of the above land by telephone from the defendant.

However, the court did not have any intent to purchase the above land at the time when the defendant also asked E of whether he had an intention to sell the land, in other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court.

The fact that the defendant and two other parties are stated, ② the third party who actually intended to purchase each of the above lands before the establishment of the self-sale contract on February 28, 2013, and the contract was concluded on the part of E under the mediation of the defendant, and the J raised an objection.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2017.01.16 2016고정852

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.06.07 2018고단130

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.11.29 2017고정450

-대구지방법원 2018.07.27 2018고정42

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.02.08 2016고정492