1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The details and details of the disposition are practicing licensed real estate agents operating the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101-1.

On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that “D is employed as a brokerage assistant,” but was returned on the ground of “unclaimed education for brokerage assistant.”

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff had D complete job training.

On October 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition “15 days of business suspension” to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report the employment of brokerage assistants pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Articles 8(1) and 25(1) and 25(2) of the Enforcement Rule thereof.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 25, 2016.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant changed the period from October 23, 2015 to November 6, 2015, “from February 5, 2016 to February 19, 2016”.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument, the public official belonging to the defendant demanded only the plaintiff's signature of confirmation document prepared in advance without presenting any certificate proving his/her identity at the time of investigation by entering the plaintiff's office.

This is against Article 44(2) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, and the instant disposition based on such unlawful investigation is unlawful.

The plaintiff did not conclude an employment contract with D.

On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported D to the Defendant as a brokerage assistant on April 21, 2015, but returned D on the grounds of “unclaimed number of business education for brokerage assistant”. On May 26, 2015, D intended to enter into an employment contract with D immediately after completing business education for brokerage assistant, but agreed on the working conditions.