beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and by a fine of 7,00,000 won.
Reasons
1. Defendant A is an authorized broker for the opening of business operating the “E” in the king City C commercial building D, and Defendant B is a real estate consulting business entity.
A. Defendant A arranged a contract to sell Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G (hereinafter “instant hotel”) owned by the seller to 4 persons, including the buyer H, for KRW 16,250,00,000. On June 25, 2015, the Defendant allowed B to enter into a real estate sales contract with the Defendant’s name and trade name at the point of lock-gu I bank lock-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City lock-gu I bank lock-gu location, and allowed B to engage in brokerage by using his/her name or trade name.
B. Defendant B mediated a contract to sell the instant hotel owned by the seller to 4 persons, such as H, etc. for KRW 16,250,00,000,00, and concluded the said real estate sales contract by using the name and trade name of the said A at the potential branch of the I Bank located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around June 25, 2015, and provided brokerage services using A’s name or trade name.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the seller F and the buyer H through Defendant B, who did not hold a certified broker’s license, to request the sale and purchase of the hotel of this case and to conclude a contract, and F, H and J drafted a real estate transaction contract with respect to the hotel of this case by the J.
The testimony was made, June 25, 2015, Defendant A signed and sealed the final real estate transaction agreement with respect to the instant hotel, but at that time, F and H had become aware of the identity of Defendant A; Defendant B referred to as a certified intermediary that gives Defendant F a value of his seal to KRW 5 million; even if Defendant A drafted a draft of the transaction agreement.
In full view of the fact that this is merely a necessary document work on the hotel of this case, and there is no fact that the defendant A arranged the transaction at the request of the party involved in the transaction, or provided information on the real estate, as an authorized intermediary.