2016 Cancellation of disposition of suspension of business

forest** *

Changwon-si

Attorney Lee Do-young

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Litigation Performers;

June 28, 2016

August 16, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for three months that the Plaintiff rendered on February 24, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. The disposition stated in Paragraph 1 is suspended until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is pronounced.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

The plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who has registered the establishment of a brokerage office in the name of "Ahap Dong Licensed Real Estate Agent Office" in the name of "Ahapdong Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si."

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff mediated the lease between the lessor AA and the lessee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant brokerage”) with respect to the multi-family house on the ground located in the Gowon-si, Gowon-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

On February 24, 2016, the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 5 million on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act by failing to verify and explain the relationship of rights, etc. of the object of brokerage in relation to the instant brokerage without presenting relevant materials, and imposed an administrative fine of KRW 5 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act by failing to issue a confirmation and explanation of the object of brokerage, and imposed a disposition of suspension of business for three months on the ground that Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that when a practicing licensed real estate agent prepares a contract document after the brokerage is completed, he/she shall deliver a confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage to the parties to the transaction. Since the mediation of this case does not reach the completion of the brokerage stipulated in Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff is liable to deliver a confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage to the Plaintiff in connection with the mediation of this case. Accordingly, the disposition of

B. Relevant statutes

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Facts of recognition

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, while acting as a broker of the instant case, was acting as a broker by making telephone calls with A to the effect that the lessor was unable to visit the brokerage office.

At the time of the instant brokerage, the Plaintiff received a request from AA to direct contact with the lessee on the date of the delivery of real estate, lease period, etc. first of all, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a lease agreement (as referred to in subparagraph (B) on the instant real estate entered into on November 24, 2016, stating the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, contract deposit of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

AB transferred the down payment of KRW 500,000 to the deposit account of AA on November 19, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence No. 1, the testimony of a witness AA, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that when a practicing licensed real estate agent prepares a contract document after the brokerage is completed, he/she shall prepare the confirmation and explanation prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 25(1), such as the state, location, and relationship of rights and interests, and deliver them to the parties to the transaction, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Thus, the duty of such practicing licensed real estate agent to deliver the confirmation and explanation of the object of brokerage arises when the brokerage is completed. Here, the time the brokerage is completed refers to the time when a practicing licensed real estate agent arranges a transaction of the object of brokerage and the parties to the transaction agree with a specific intention concerning important matters in the transaction

However, in light of the nature of the lease contract, the lease term in the real estate lease contract appears to be important matters that form the essential substance of the contract along with the lease deposit, etc., and the lessor expressed to the Plaintiff at the time of the brokerage of this case the intention of the Plaintiff to directly agree with the Plaintiff about the lease term, the delivery date of real estate, etc., and there was no specific agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the lease term between AA and AB, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have reached the time when the brokerage of this case completed the brokerage of this case under Article 25(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act merely because the Plaintiff had AB transfer the down payment amount of KRW 500,00 to the deposit account of AB and delivered the contract of this case to AB.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff had the obligation to confirm the object of brokerage and deliver an explanatory note, is unlawful in relation to the instant brokerage.

3. Suspension of execution.

It is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent the damage difficult to recover from the Plaintiff due to the execution of the instant disposition, and there is no evidence to deem that the suspension of the execution of the instant disposition might have a significant impact on public welfare, so the execution of the instant disposition shall be suspended until the judgment of the appellate court is sentenced

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Full completion

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.