1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who has registered the establishment of a licensed real estate agent office (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”) under the name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B and 105 (hereinafter “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”).

On November 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the registration of establishment of the instant brokerage office pursuant to Article 38(1)6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “an act of allowing another person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name, or transferring or lending his/her registration certificate of brokerage office to another person in violation of Article 19(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, based on the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 6, and the purport of the entire argument, is unlawful since the Plaintiff merely acknowledged the instant disposition by coercion even though the Plaintiff had a brokerage assistant D render brokerage services or did not transfer or lend the registration certificate of a brokerage office.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

Article 38(1)6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that, where a real estate agent allows another person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name, or transfers or lends his/her registration certificate of a brokerage office to another person, the registration of establishment of the brokerage office shall be revoked.

In addition to the evidence mentioned above, the following facts and circumstances revealed by Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings are gathered, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having allowed another person to render brokerage services using his name or trade name in violation of Article 19 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

In this case.