The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at protecting transaction parties, whether a broker constitutes brokerage under the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014) shall not be determined on the basis of the broker’s subjective intent, not on the basis of whether the broker has a genuine intent to mediate transaction for the transaction transaction, but on the basis of whether the broker’s act objectively deemed as an act for mediating transaction by social norms, not on the basis of whether the broker’s act is objectively deemed as an act for mediating transaction.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act of performing duties is deemed to be an act in relation to the performance of duties without considering subjective circumstances when the employee’s unlawful act appears objectively to be an employee’s business activity, an act of performing duties, or an act of performing duties, or an act related thereto, as stipulated under Article 756 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da22276, Jun. 12, 2008).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da41529, Nov. 24, 2011). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s selling of the instant land to the Plaintiff was an act for mediating or mediating transactions by social norms, or an act for objectively performing the Defendant’s business, or an act related thereto.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.