A. Notwithstanding that the Defendant was not a licensed real estate agent registered with the Daejeon District Court as an attorney, a certified judicial scrivener, or a proxy for a request for purchase, the Defendant promised to receive KRW 4.5 million from the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013 on the condition that the Plaintiff, the applicant for the bid to the Seocho-gu Daejeon District Court, which is the object of the Daejeon District Court C Auction, receive a successful bid of KRW 109 Dong 601.

B. On or around December 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared a bid list, which is a document related to auction on behalf of the Plaintiff, and submitted it to the said court; (b) made the said apartment successful bidder; (c) received KRW 1.2 million on the same day; and (d) transferred KRW 3.3 million to the account of the National Bank in the name of the Defendant around the 6th of the same month.

C. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant was prosecuted for violating the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the above acts, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a collection of 8.5 million won by the court on April 28, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph 1, even though the defendant is not an attorney-at-law, certified judicial scrivener, or licensed real estate agent registered in the Daejeon District Court, the defendant represented the auction bidding on behalf of the plaintiff and received 4.5 million won as a commission. The fee payment agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is an agreement of payment for acts violating Item 1 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a mandatory law, and its judicial effect is denied.

Therefore, the above KRW 4.5 million, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment without any legal ground pursuant to the invalid agreement. The Defendant, among the above money, returned to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million (the Plaintiff is the person who was returned KRW 5 million and the Plaintiff was returned KRW 4 million) for which the Plaintiff sought payment.