[1] Whether "building and other fixtures on land" among the objects of brokerage as prescribed by the former Real Estate Brokerage Act, the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and the Report of Real Estate Transactions Act is limited to the buildings falling under real estate under the Civil Act (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a third party structure with a tent or glass installed on the roof covering a steel pipe or steel pole by means of assembling steel on the concrete ground by means of a V does not constitute “land fixtures” which are real estate under the Civil Act

[3] Whether the intangible property value of a building for business use constitutes an "object of brokerage" under the former Real Estate Brokerage Act, the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (negative)

[1] Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005) and Article 3 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act provide for "land, buildings, and other fixtures on the land" with regard to the scope of the object of brokerage. The term "building" refers to a building falling under real estate under the Civil Act, such as where each of the above Acts provides for "the purpose of guiding, fostering, and establishing a fair and transparent order in real estate transactions" for the purpose of "the establishment of a sound and transparent order in real estate transaction". The provisions on the scope of the object of brokerage are defined as "land and things attached thereto", except in the case of one thing attached to the building. In light of the legislative intent of each of the above Acts, it is limited to real estate falling under the real estate under the Civil Act.

[2] The case holding that the third-party structure with a tent or glass installed on the roof covering the roof by means of steel assembly with a steel pipe or steel structure installed on the concrete ground by means of a V, does not constitute “land fixtures” which are real estate under the Civil Act

[3] Tangible property values, such as business facilities, fixtures, etc. of a business building, or tangible and intangible property values, such as business advantages due to the location of a customer, credit, business know-how, or store, do not fall under the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005) and the business affairs of licensed real estate agents and report of Real Estate Transactions Act.

[1] Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005), Article 3 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Article 9 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005), Article 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Article 9 (1) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005), Article 3 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6054 Decided September 22, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1856) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3800 Decided October 27, 2006

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008No731 Decided September 25, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005 and the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions) and Article 3 of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions provide for "land, buildings, and other fixtures on the land" as to the scope of objects of brokerage under each of the above Acts. Here, the term "building" is clearly defined that the above Act aims to guide and foster real estate brokerage business in a sound manner and establish a fair and transparent order in real estate transactions. Each provision on the scope of object of brokerage is defined as "land and things attached thereto," and it is not possible to separate the above building from the above 3 columns or columns from the above 19,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000).

On the other hand, tangible and intangible property values such as business facilities and fixtures of a building for business use, or tangible and intangible property values such as business gains due to the location of a business partner, credit, business know-how, or store cannot be deemed as objects of brokerage under Article 3 of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6054, Sept. 22, 2006, etc.).

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that all the facilities related to the Three Deputy Structures and the Three Deputy Structures of this case, which the defendant arranged the sale and purchase, cannot be the object of brokerage as prescribed by each of the above laws, notwithstanding the fact that the above three Deputy Structures, etc. constitute the object of brokerage as prescribed by the above laws, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of brokerage under Article 3 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act and the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, and such illegality affected the decision.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)