Article 15 subparagraph 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005 and the Act on the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions) provides that a broker, etc. shall not make any act of causing a judgement of the client by false words or other means concerning the important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage. The above "important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage" shall be deemed to include not only matters concerning the object of brokerage itself, but also matters concerning the price of the object of brokerage as long as such matters can be deemed to be important matters in the transaction concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da25963, Dec. 24, 191).

Therefore, the court below erred in finding that the important matters in the transaction of the object of brokerage in question include only the important matters in the transaction of the object of brokerage itself.

However, according to the records of this case, while selling the real estate at KRW 630 million to the buyer of this case, the seller is responsible for the sale of the real estate of this case, and the seller leases the "(trade name omitted) place of business to another person for KRW 100 million and KRW 2.5 million from the above purchase price, and the defendant decided to deduct the deposit KRW 100 million from the above purchase price. The seller, who attempted to obtain KRW 700 million from the new lessee in the above sale and purchase brokerage, received KRW 70 million from the new lessee in the above sale and purchase brokerage, can receive the full amount of the purchase price originally paid by the seller as the facility cost, and he is responsible for the receipt of the above lease and facility cost. However, the court below rejected the defendant's conclusion that the above contract cannot be concluded to be unlawful in light of the fact that the seller did not have any influence on the conclusion that the seller did not accept the above lease and facility cost, and thus, it cannot be concluded that it did not have any legitimate grounds for appeal.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)