logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2019.05.14 2018고정80
공인중개사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a practicing licensed real estate agent running a C office located in G in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

No practicing licensed real estate agent shall receive money and valuables in excess of the limit on brokerage remuneration or actual expenses under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, on any pretext, such as reward, donation or others.

On May 27, 2016, the Defendant arranged a real estate sales contract for the purchase price of KRW 731,400,000 for D and E (hereinafter “instant land”) at the above C Office (hereinafter “instant land”) and received KRW 13,000,000 from F on June 10, 2016, for the amount exceeding KRW 7,240,860 for statutory brokerage fees (including value-added tax) and was remitted from F on June 10, 2016 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account as a brokerage fee for the said real estate sales contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant received money exceeding the limit of brokerage fees.

2. As to the facts charged, the Defendant asserts to the effect that not only the sale and purchase of the instant land but also the sale and purchase of G forest land, etc. (hereinafter “G real estate”) on June 1, 2016, and H land and buildings, etc. (hereinafter “H real estate”) on June 4, 2016, and the Defendant was transferred KRW 13,00,000 from F as indicated in the facts charged, as indicated in the instant facts charged. However, the Defendant merely received a remittance of part of the sum of the brokerage fees for the said three real estate sale and purchase brokerage, and the Defendant merely did not receive money in excess of the statutory amount.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following circumstances are revealed, namely, ① in this Court stated that F purchased the instant land and G real estate and H real estate under the brokerage of the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s assertion is partially consistent with the Defendant’s assertion. ② The Defendant paid F the intermediary fees for the instant three sales contracts under the Changwon District Court 2017Gau1076.

arrow