Whether a contract for the sale of commercial buildings constitutes "certificate related to the lease of real estate for sale, etc." under Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (negative)

In order to sell all commercial buildings, the sales contract stating the sale conditions, etc. to be used and stating the relevant matters such as the sale price and the payment date is a sales contract of commercial buildings, and it cannot be viewed as a certificate related to the lease and sale of real estate under Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.

Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Il-il

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No1560 delivered on February 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Concerning facts charged No. 1

As determined by the court below, if the defendant purchased the 117th floor 128 of the 117 commercial buildings in the decision that he entered into a provisional contract with the Korea Assets Management Corporation, and the above long-term sales contract was issued in the form in which he entered the terms and conditions of sale in advance and entered the sale price and its payment date in order to use them when he sells the whole commercial buildings, such sales contract is merely a sales contract of the commercial buildings, and it shall not be deemed as a certificate related to the real estate lease, sale, etc. under Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law

Concerning facts charged No. 2

The judgment of the court below, based on the facts stated in its reasoning, is a real estate broker, but the resale of commercial buildings in its judgment is not a broker but a seller as a broker, and the brokerage of the contract was determined by the use of the non-party. Thus, the decision of the court below is just and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. In light of the records, the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)