logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2006도7594 판결
[부동산중개업법위반][미간행]
Main Issues

Whether the act of real estate brokerage, which is conducted incidental to the act of real estate consulting, does not constitute a brokerage business under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (negative)

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005 and the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions) (see Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the current Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act), Article 4 (1) (see Article 9 (1) of the current Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act) and Article 38 (1) 1 (see Article 48 subparagraph 1 of the current Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act).

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006No740 Decided October 13, 2006

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If the act of real estate brokerage was conducted incidental to the act of real estate consulting, it shall not be deemed that it does not constitute a brokerage business under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of acting as an agent of real estate with the permission of the authority under Article 4 (1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act while conducting real estate consulting business, and maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance punished under Article 38 (1) 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 38 (1) 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)

arrow