1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the qualification of licensed real estate agent, and registered the establishment of a brokerage office with the trade name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”) using the 1st floor of the building in Osan City as its seat on April 10, 2008.

B. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s qualification as a licensed real estate agent (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Articles 7(1) and 35(1)2 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had D render brokerage services using his/her name on August 22, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3, Eul 1-1, 2, and Eul 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was sent back to the hospital with contact that his/her body is off, and that he/she was immediately sent back to the hospital, and that he/she was reported the case related to E from D, the intermediary assistant among the Do, and subsequently, presented the relevant documents, such as the copy of the register of the register, and then made the contract and received the seal of E.

On the following day, the Plaintiff took over a lease contract made under the above circumstances from D, and obtained the lessor’s signature and seal from the lessor’s side, and then entered the Plaintiff’s name in the Licensed Real Estate Agent column and affixed the seal registered with the Office.

In light of the above circumstances, since the plaintiff allowed D, an intermediary assistant, to sign and affix a seal on the tenant's signature and seal, it cannot be deemed that D was engaged in the brokerage business, and it does not constitute a case where D, the intermediary assistant, had D conduct the brokerage business in the process of using the plaintiff's name, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is different on different premise.