logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.23 2015노3671
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

Defendant .

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(In full view of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, the defendants engaged in the brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office as shown in the facts charged or engaged in labeling or advertising of the object of brokerage can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts against the Defendants.

The lower court determined that the Defendants were not guilty of all of the Defendants, on the ground that the Defendants received the consignment management fee from the trustor pursuant to the instant building management consignment agreement, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendants received the consignment management fee, and that the Defendants did not actually receive such remuneration, the Defendants could not be deemed to have engaged in the brokerage business.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensed Real Estate Agents Act") related to the judgment of the political party refers to the mediation of sale, exchange, lease and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage, and the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act is punished by a person who engages in brokerage business without the registration of establishment of a brokerage office.

(Article 48 Subparag. 1). Meanwhile, even where an act of arranging the conclusion of a lease agreement is conducted incidental to the act of managing real estate by proxy, it may constitute an act of arranging under Article 2 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act

[Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1393, Jul. 10, 2014] In light of the purport of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, which aims to protect a transaction party, whether a certain act constitutes brokerage is not determined by the broker’s subjective intent, rather than by the broker’s subjective intention, which considers the broker’s act objectively.

arrow