1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On June 10, 2013, the key issue of the instant case: (a) on September 22, 2012, the Defendant rendered a real estate brokerage office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, was in violation of Article 19(1) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Act and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) by having D, a broker assistant, engage in the brokerage business of Ulsan-gu E-Ba 302 (hereinafter “instant lending”) using the Plaintiff’s name or trade name.

The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff had D render brokerage services with the Plaintiff’s name or trade name.

B. The court of first instance held that around September 22, 2012: (a) the Plaintiff arranged a sales contract to sell F lending of this case owned by F to G by using the Plaintiff’s name at the office of this case; (b) the Plaintiff’s name is stated in the column of the sales contract; (c) the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed; and (d) the Plaintiff received KRW 300,000 from G’s wife H as a intermediary commission; and (c) the Plaintiff was indicted for committing an offense of violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act and sentenced to KRW 1 million on February 6, 2014 on the ground that he/she had D engage in brokerage by using the Plaintiff’s name; and (d) the judgment below became final and conclusive on September 26, 2014 by using the Plaintiff’s name as it became final and conclusive, and (e) the Plaintiff’s judgment became final and conclusive on September 26, 2014.

2. The judgment of this Court and the judgment of the first instance.