The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant arranged the instant real estate sales contract without registering the establishment of the real estate brokerage office, but did not receive any consideration therefor, and the buyer'sO and H asked that the Plaintiff be able to live in the original mountain Island and attempted to sell and purchase the instant real estate without any specific consideration in consideration of human relations, etc. so, it does not run a brokerage business. Even if the Defendant received the money, even if it cannot be deemed as having received the money from the seller or the buyer's intention, it cannot be deemed as having received the money, and therefore it does not correspond to the definition of "business" under the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter "Real Estate Brokerage Act"), and therefore, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act provides that "a brokerage business" means a business of acting as a broker at another person's request for a certain amount of remuneration, and the term "business of brokerage" refers to a continuous engaging in brokerage as a business. As such, the issue of whether a broker is actually engaged in brokerage shall be determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as continuity of brokerage act, continuity of business, etc., and the purpose, size, frequency, period, mode, etc. of such act, as well as the purpose, size, etc. of such act. However, if a broker is engaged in brokerage with a repeated intention as well as continuous brokerage, even if one of the transaction parties received a brokerage commission only, it shall be deemed that such act was conducted only once.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1080 Decided April 27, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 13 January 13, 2006