The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who engages in brokerage business with a trade name.

No licensed real estate agent shall allow other persons to render brokerage services using his name or trade name.

Nevertheless, around May 28, 2014, the Defendant, from “C” located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D, had E act as a broker for the trading of F apartment 107 Dong 1502, Yeonsu-gu Incheon (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and received KRW 1,200,000 from the commission.

Accordingly, the defendant allowed another person to render brokerage services using his name or trade name.

2. Determination of whether an unqualified person performed the business of a licensed real estate agent shall be based on whether a disqualified person actually performs the business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent without examining whether the licensed real estate agent directly performs the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4542, Nov. 15, 2012). If a part of the brokerage business was carried out by another person, even if the broker was actually involved in the brokerage business, it cannot be deemed that the broker had another person perform the brokerage business using his/her name or trade name.

(2) According to the records, G, which is a seller of the instant sales contract, was consulted with the Defendant that “C” is a broker operating the instant real estate transaction office. ② At the time G visited the said licensed real estate agent office, G was consulted with the Defendant that “10% of the sales price should be assessed against damages.” ③ The remainder of the sales contract of this case, excluding the column for the seller, is written in advance by the Defendant. ④ At the time of the preparation of the instant sales contract, the Defendant was unable to attend the sales contract while G while he was in company with E and G.