[1] Criteria for determining whether an act of brokerage under the Real Estate Brokerage Act constitutes an act of brokerage

[2] The case holding that the money received in relation to the so-called "sale agency," which is distinguished from brokerage, is not the money prohibited from excessive numbers under Article 15 (2) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, on the ground that it constitutes the money.

[1] Articles 38(2)5 and 15 subparag. 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act prohibit a real estate broker from receiving money or goods, such as commission and actual expenses, in excess of the limit stipulated under Article 20(3) of the same Act with respect to the brokerage business, and punishs the act in violation of this provision. Here, the brokerage business refers to the brokerage business as to the object of brokerage, such as sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, and modification of rights between the parties to the transaction (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act). On the other hand, in light of the purport of the legal provisions that aim to protect the parties to the transaction, whether an act constitutes a brokerage business shall be determined by social norms, from the objective perspective of the broker’s act

[2] The case holding that the money received in relation to the so-called "sale agency," which is distinguished from brokerage, is not the money prohibited from being exceeded in accordance with Article 15 (2) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 15 subparag. 2, and Article 38(2)5 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 15 subparag. 2, and Article 38(2)5 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da47261 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3600)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 97No1705 delivered on May 28, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Articles 38(2)5 and 15 subparag. 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 4628, Dec. 27, 1993) prohibit a real estate broker from receiving money or goods, such as commission and actual expenses, in excess of the limit prescribed in Article 20(3) of the same Act, in relation to brokerage business, and punish a person who violates such prohibition. Here, brokerage business refers to mediating transactions, exchange, lease, and other acts of acquisition, loss, and change of the rights of the parties to a transaction with regard to the object of brokerage (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act). Meanwhile, in light of the purport of the legal provisions that aim to protect the parties to a transaction, whether an act constitutes brokerage business shall be determined based on whether a broker’s act is objectively deemed to be an act to arrange transactions and act to mediate transactions in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da47261, Sept. 29, 195).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 18, 1995, the court below concluded that the defendant was requested to sell commercial buildings newly constructed in Taedong-dong-gu, Daegu, Daegu, and that the defendant would have the amount in excess if the sale price exceeds 2,150,000,00 won, and that the defendant would have the defendant, and that the whole amount of the expenses incurred in the sale shall be borne by the defendant, and if the sale price is made at a fixed price, 2% of the amount deposited by the defendant shall be paid to the defendant at the time of conclusion of the sale contract, and the balance shall be settled when the sale price is completed, 4,140,000 won shall be borne by the defendant, 5,000 won in excess of the total sale price, 38,43,96,340 won in the commercial buildings of this case by advertising his own expenses in accordance with this agreement, and that the defendant's act of selling the commercial buildings of this case constitutes an act of selling the commercial buildings of this case as an intermediary and an act of this case.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)