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 January 20, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the qualification as a licensed real estate agent, and on January 20, 2004, registered the establishment of a brokerage office under the name of “Creal estate real estate agent office” (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”) with the location of “Seoul Seocho-gu Office” as the Defendant.

B. Around December 15, 2014, a civil petitioner D submitted to the Defendant a civil petition stating that the Plaintiff had a private village E engage in brokerage by using his/her name.

The defendant's investigation process acknowledged that E prepared a total of nine real estate transaction contracts on behalf of the plaintiff on January 15, 2015, and the plaintiff also recognized that E prepared a real estate transaction contract on behalf of the plaintiff when he/she went to a local business trip on February 3, 2015.

C. On March 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the registration of establishment of the instant brokerage office pursuant to Articles 19(1) and 38(1)6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had another person render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is responsible for the livelihood of his family and is faithfully operating the instant brokerage office, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power due to excessive suspicion.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. 1) Although the Plaintiff alleged in the initial complaint that the grounds for the instant disposition did not exist, the grounds for the disposition are recognized at the first date for pleading, and the Plaintiff stated its intention to assert only the abuse of discretionary power, and thus, it is not separately determined on the grounds for the disposition. 2) Whether an administrative act is binding.