Standard for determining whether an act constitutes a “act of brokerage” as prescribed by the former Real Estate Brokerage Act.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005) (see Article 2 subparag. 1 of the current Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act)

Supreme Court Decision 98Do1914 delivered on July 23, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1822) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32197 Delivered on October 7, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1772)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Ansan-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na7917 decided June 7, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7638, Jul. 29, 2005; Act No. 7638, Jul. 29, 2005; Act No. 7638; hereinafter referred to as the "Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act") means mediating the transaction, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, and alteration of rights between the parties to the transaction with respect to the object of brokerage under Article 3 of the same Act. Whether an act constitutes brokerage shall be determined by social norms by objectively viewing the act of the broker in light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at the protection of the parties to the transaction, and by determining whether the act of the broker is deemed to be an act for brokerage and mediation (see Supreme Court

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when comprehensively taking into account the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased non-party (hereinafter, the deceased) was acting as a broker for each of the instant lands and received a brokerage commission, and that the deceased’s act of purchasing land at low prices for the sake of purchasing the land on behalf of the plaintiff and three others does not constitute an act of brokerage stipulated in the former Real Estate Brokerage Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to whether the deceased engaged in brokerage or illegal consideration for business purposes is based on family and additional determination by the court below, and insofar as it is not recognized that the deceased was paid money with brokerage commission as seen earlier, the legitimacy of the above determination cannot affect the judgment, and therefore, it is without merit to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)