logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.02 2017구합2049
부동산 업무정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who has run real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoul.

B. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) arranged a sales contract with the seller G and the buyer as H with respect to the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) drafted a real estate sales contract.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first sales contract”). (c)

Unlike the original terms and conditions of the contract, G and H set up only F among the instant real estate as the subject matter of sale. The Plaintiff re-established a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “the second sales contract”) with only F among the instant real estate as the subject matter of sale between G and H, and reversed the first sales contract that was kept.

On April 21, 2017, G’s agent I submitted a written petition requesting disposition to the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not issue a description of the object of brokerage and a certificate of liability for damages, and that the broker assistant acted as a broker and prepared a contract.

E. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not keep the first and second sales contracts in violation of Article 26(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter “the Act”) for six months of business suspension (three months of business suspension per contract) and (2) as the Plaintiff did not issue a certificate of liability guarantee in violation of Article 30(5) of the Act, thereby falling under an administrative fine of KRW 300,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for business suspension under Articles 39(1)8 and 51(3)5 of the Act.

F. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant did not keep the first sales contract against the Plaintiff; (1) did not keep the first sales contract; (2) did not issue a certificate of liability for damages; and (1) Article 39(1)8 of the Act; Article 25 subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act; (2) Article 51(3)5 of the Act; and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

arrow