The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at protecting the transaction parties, whether a broker constitutes a brokerage act prescribed by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act shall not be determined based on the subjective intent of the broker, not on the basis of whether the broker has an intention to mediate and mediate the transaction for the transaction party, but on the basis of whether the broker’s act is objectively deemed as an act for mediating and mediating the transaction in light of social norms.

(2) On June 12, 208, Supreme Court Decision 2015Da23260 Decided August 19, 2015, etc.). 2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of registration was subject to cancellation of the title registration agreement, based on the following: (a) the Defendant signed and sealed the instant sales contract on the place where the remainder payment was made; (b) the Plaintiff was present at the place where the Plaintiff was paid; (c) the Plaintiff, a seller, was present at the competent office; and (d) the Plaintiff submitted a registration statement of real estate transaction at the competent office; and (d) the Plaintiff, a seller, was involved in the preparation of the sales contract and signed and sealed by the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant, who was aware of the signature and sealed by the Defendant in the column of the sales contract; and (e) the Defendant’s act of registration in the instant case, entered the description on the title registration agreement in the register of the instant building in consideration of the following factors: (e) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s act of registration.

3. However, the court below's decision.