logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.04.26 2013노44
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant was unaware of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles that F, while leasing Kim Jong-si J 704 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by G, the Defendant did not know that F, immediately after the conclusion of the lease agreement, intended to open the public book.

She also refer to the current status, transaction price, etc. concerning the real estate itself, as stipulated in Article 33(4) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”).

Therefore, the defendant was aware that F attempted to operate the public room in the apartment of this case.

Even if this is not an important matter in the transaction to be notified to G.

In addition, even after G became aware that the apartment of this case was used as a public book, in light of the fact that G newly prepared a lease agreement and maintained the lease agreement, it cannot be said that G’s decision was excessively affected even if the Defendant did not notify the above fact.

Secondly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of facts, first, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the F consistently stated in the court below and the investigative agency that the Defendant requested the location of the private teaching institute from the time of the lease brokerage, and the investigative agency consistently stated that the Defendant would have no place in the commercial building at the time. The purpose of the investigation agency is to start a private teaching institute or a public book

arrow