logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.25 2017노2492
공인중개사법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A was unable to attend the site at the time of entering into a lease agreement, Defendant A obtained a certified copy of the register on the leased object for the purpose of entering into the lease agreement, Defendant A confirmed the relationship of rights and confirmed the lease agreement and the description of the object of brokerage in advance.

Defendant

Defendant B, as a broker, has completed the contract execution work in accordance with Defendant A’s occupational instruction. Thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have allowed Defendant B to perform the brokerage work by using his name and trade name.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (each fine of two million won) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) The term "loan of a certificate of an authorized broker" prohibited by the law of brokerage means that another person knowingly lends his/her certificate of qualification to another person with the knowledge that he/she intends to perform his/her duties by using his/her certificate of qualification. On the other hand, whether an unqualified person performs his/her duties as a certified broker should be determined depending on whether the unqualified person actually performs his/her duties by using the name of the certified broker without examining whether the certified broker is in the form of performing his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007). (2) The evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below can be acknowledged as follows.

A) On May 2012, I visited the F Authorized Broker Office to rent housing around the middle of May 2012.

At the time, there was Defendant B, and Defendant A did not have an office.

B) Upon introduction by Defendant B, I sets up the instant house of KRW 70 million, deposit deposit of KRW 80 million, deposit of KRW 130 million, and deposit of KRW 130 million.

arrow