logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.04.18 2012고정1823 (2)
주택법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, as a broker assistant of the “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Sejong City B, agreed to arrange the resale of apartment sales rights sold by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in Sejong Special Self-Governing City and to distribute the apartment sales rights at the rate of D and 5:5 to the seller or buyer at the rate of D and 5:5.

On November 201, 201, the Defendant: “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” sold in lots by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation; “F selected as an occupant under 307 Dong 101, in Sejong-si, E Apartment 307, 101, mediates transfer of the apartment purchase right to G; and received two million won from G as good offices fees.

However, the apartment house was supplied in the public housing site and it was a house that could not resell the status of being selected as the occupant of the house or arrange its resale for one year from December 23, 201, which is the date of initial contract.

In conclusion, the Defendant conspired with D to arrange the resale of the status of being selected as the occupant of the housing subject to the upper price ceiling system during the period of restriction on resale, and to encourage real estate speculation by mediating the sale of real estate for the purpose of violating the relevant statutes.

2. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with D, purchased the right to sell the relevant apartment from the I selected as the occupant of H apartment 1106 Dong 502, which was sold by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation at the “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” office of the Defendant, in collusion with D, at KRW 15 million, and transferred the right to sell the apartment again to J.

However, the apartment house was supplied in the public housing site and it was a house that could not resell the status of being selected as the occupant of the house or arrange its resale for one year from February 14, 2012, which is the date of initial contract.

Ultimately, the defendant is selected as the occupant of a house subject to the upper price ceiling system in collusion with the above D during the period of resale restriction.

arrow