beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant entered into a real estate consulting service contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and performed real estate consulting services. On the premise, a lease agreement on F ownership building between F and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) was only concluded.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Business of Authorized Broker and Report of Real Estate Transactions, although the defendant's act falls within the scope of real estate consulting and does not fall within the real estate brokerage business, and the defendant cannot be deemed as a real estate brokerage business, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Business Affairs of Certified Private Brokerage and Report of Real Estate Transactions (amended by Act No. 12374, Nov. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the term "mediation" means the mediation of acts concerning purchase, sale, exchange, lease and other rights between the parties to the transaction with respect to the object of brokerage under Article 3, and the acquisition, loss, and transfer of other rights." Whether an act constitutes brokerage shall be determined by whether a broker's act is objectively deemed to be an act for brokerage and mediation in light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at protecting the parties to the transaction in light of the objective purpose of protecting the parties to the transaction, and whether the broker's act is deemed to be an act for brokerage and mediation in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5271, Nov. 12, 2004).
this Act does not constitute a brokerage business under the above Act.
It cannot be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7594 delivered on January 11, 2007, etc.).