1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff, established on July 2, 2015, for the purpose of running real estate brokerage business, arranged a lease agreement with the lessor, which leases the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the previous YY. At the time, the Plaintiff, without signing the name of the representative in the broker column of the lease agreement, affixed the signature of the representative to the name of the

B. The mediation assistants affiliated with the Plaintiff have placed multiple advertisements by stating the indication and characteristics of the brokerage articles, the name and contact information of the brokerage assistant, etc. on the website opened under the name of the Plaintiff E, and the Defendant confirmed the above advertising act around February 16, 2016.

C. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of six months of business suspension (from April 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds, following prior notice and hearing of opinions:

The fact that a person who is not a practicing licensed real estate agent whose signature is omitted and who is not a practicing licensed real estate agent whose signature is omitted is indicated and advertised on the object of brokerage (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the disposition ground does not constitute an illegal act merely because the plaintiff did not allow a person who is not a licensed real estate agent to display a mark or advertisement of the object of brokerage, but rather stated an additional brokerage assistant. 2) Although the plaintiff abused and abused discretion omitted his/her signature in the lease contract and the confirmation explanatory note of the object of brokerage, the plaintiff did not have any false or unfaithful entries, and the plaintiff's act of brokerage between the lessor and the lessee.