logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.20 2016고정2058
공인중개사법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Although Defendant A’s certified broker is prohibited from allowing any other person to engage in brokerage business using his/her name or trade name, the Defendant used the name and trade name of the Defendant with respect to B’s brokerage business of “E certified broker office” from “E certified broker office located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 301 sales price of KRW 320,000,000,000,0000,000 from “E certified broker office” on March 13, 2015, and used B’s name and trade name with respect to “sales contract between the seller H and the buyer” at the same place on September 30, 2015.

2. Although Defendant B was prohibited from acting as a broker by using another person’s name or trade name, the Defendant used the above name and trade name in the said “E Authorized Brokerage Office” to render brokerage services.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the witness B;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of a suspect of the police against the defendant B, or a protocol concerning a part of the police interrogation against the defendant A;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes requesting investigation;

1. Article 49 (1) 7 and Article 19 (1) of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage, and Article 49 (1) 1 of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage, and Article 49 (1) 2 of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage, and Articles 49 (1) 7 and 19 (2) of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage, and Selection of Fines;

1. The Defendants detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act / [Defendant A and his/her defense counsel did not allow the Defendant B to use his/her name regarding the act of brokerage stated in the crime (hereinafter “instant act of brokerage”) and Defendant B arbitrarily used the name of the Defendant A without Defendant A’s consent.

On the other hand, Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage is different.

arrow