1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who operates the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”) in Busan-gu B and 101.

B. On October 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the inspection of the instant business establishment, the signature was omitted in the real estate lease contract and the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage; and (b) discovered the fact that the brokerage fee was not stated in the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage.

C. On January 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for three months pursuant to Article 39(1)7 and 9 of the Act (hereinafter “the first disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter “Act”) on the failure to state his/her brokerage remuneration, on the ground that Article 51(2)1-2 of the Act on the ground that he/she violated Article 25(2)1-2 of the Act on the omission of signature, and Article 25(4) and Article 26(2) of the Act on the omission of signature.

On February 21, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal, and rendered a ruling to reduce the initial disposition by 45 days of business suspension on the ground that the disposition for the suspension of business against the Plaintiff was excessive.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” that was reduced on January 9, 2017 due to an administrative appeal ruling and reduced to 45 days from business suspension (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1 through 6 (including additional number, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is that the Plaintiff affixed a name tag with the Plaintiff’s name affixed to the transaction contract, etc. and affixed a private seal, and there is no grounds for the disposition of this case. 2) The Plaintiff, who deviates from and abused discretion, was a private person after the name tag was affixed at the time, and if the disposition of this case was suspended, the Plaintiff’s loss and livelihood are significant.