logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.05.02 2012고단598
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반등
Text

Defendants are not guilty

Reasons

1. Determination on the case 2012 Highest 598

A. On August 5, 2009, Defendant A (hereinafter in this part, Defendant A indicated Defendant A) entered into a real estate service agreement with the former representative director G at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan E-building Office to acquire a total of 295,271 square meters of land in the Dong-si, Dong-si and I development project area (hereinafter “instant company”) on behalf of the former representative director G around August 5, 2009, Defendant A (hereinafter in this part, Defendant A indicated Defendant A) entered into a real estate service agreement with the former representative director G at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building Office for the acquisition of a total of 295,271 square meters of land in the Dong-si, other than Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, and Dong-si, Dong-si, and issued 1,274 square meters of land to the company of this case as indicated in the list of crimes from August 7, 2009 to April 4, 2011.

B. “Trade business” subject to the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) refers to a business of arranging the sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights between parties to a transaction with respect to the objects of brokerage, such as real estate, in return for a certain remuneration at another person’s request (Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the above Act). Whether an act constitutes brokerage is not affected by the actor’s subjective intent, but should be determined based on whether such act is objectively deemed to be an act for mediating and mediating transactions in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4572, Nov. 10, 201). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the instant company, the project executor of the I development project in the East Sea, entered into a real estate service contract with the Defendant on August 5, 2009, and the scope of the Defendant’s service.

arrow