logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.06.20 2013노285
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing) is erroneous by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not lend a licensed real estate agent qualification certificate to A or B while he had A regularly employed and work as a brokerage assistant of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

The punishment of the court below (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Whether an unqualified person in charge of determining the misunderstanding of facts has performed the business of a licensed real estate agent shall be determined based on whether a unqualified person actually performs his/her business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent without examining whether the licensed real estate agent was actually engaged in the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007). Whether an act constitutes an act of brokerage should be determined based on whether the act of the broker objectively in light of social norms is not an act of brokerage of transactions.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da55008 Decided February 8, 2007, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the Defendant and B were transferred on the condition that L would pay KRW 1 million per month for the first floor of the F building in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, where L was leased. The Defendant and B jointly run a licensed real estate agent office, and the profits from the sale of the building are distributed to 50 and 50% by the Defendant and B. On February 20, 2011, both A and B agreed that the Defendant would have 30% and 70% by the former monthly brokerage, and on February 20, 201, both B and I arranged the lease agreement between B and I as to the lessor and lessee under the condition that B signed and sealed by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, as well as that B signed and sealed by the Defendant.

arrow