(영문) 대법원 2006.10.27.선고 2006도3800 판결

1. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005, the Act on the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that "the brokerage" means the brokerage between parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage as provided in Article 3, such as purchase and sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition or modification of rights." Article 3 of the former Act provides that "the object of brokerage" is "1. 2. Buildings, other fixtures on land, 3. Other property rights and things prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Act provides that "the object of brokerage pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the former Act shall be standing trees pursuant to the Standing Timber Act, mining foundation pursuant to the Mining Foundation Mortgage Act, mining foundation pursuant to the Mining Foundation Mortgage Act, and factory foundation pursuant to the Factory Mortgage Act."

In full view of the provisions of the above laws and regulations, intangible property values such as business facilities and fixtures of a building for business, or business interest points, etc. due to the location of a business, such as business entity, customer, credit, business know-how, or store location, cannot be deemed as a object of brokerage under Article 3 of the former Act and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Act. Thus, mediating the so-called “ premium” for the transfer of tangible and intangible property value does not constitute brokerage under the former Act, and accordingly, it does not constitute brokerage under the former Act.

The limits of brokerage commission under the former Act shall not apply to the act of brokerage for such transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6054 delivered on September 22, 2006).

The judgment of the court below which is the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the object of brokerage or brokerage under the former Act.

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