logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.02 2017누72944
부동산중개업 개설등록취소처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who operates the office of licensed real estate agent B105, Young-gu, Young-si B105.

B. The Plaintiff was subject to business suspension from the Defendant (from June 20, 2016 to September 12, 2016).

C. On December 23, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the registration of establishment of the real estate brokerage business of the Plaintiff was revoked as of January 4, 2017 pursuant to Article 38(1)7 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act on the ground that the Plaintiff rendered brokerage services during the period of suspension of business.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on March 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not register an online site that registers the real estate sold during the period of suspension of business, but did not register the real estate sold at the online site that registered the real estate sold, and that the door of the office could not be seen by leaving the door. The Plaintiff also removed the paper A4 paper that was attached to the door and posted on the door and did not perform brokerage services at all by stating the “within leave” or “within the event during the house.”

around 10:30 on August 31, 2016, women in bad name (hereinafter “the instant purchaser”) asked the Plaintiff about whether there was a B apartment house that can be leased or sold by telephone. Although the Plaintiff informed the instant purchaser of all the products he/she had been aware of prior to the business suspension, the Plaintiff was in the business suspension period, but did not have been able to directly intermediate the sales. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s phone call to the representative of D Licensed Real Estate Agent E operating the real estate brokerage office in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s office.

arrow