Nevertheless, on June 11, 2015, the Defendant sold the proceeds from the resale to G, which is the wife of the F, who requested the purchase and sale of real estate, in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City E 2, 206 and 208, which he purchased from the KMD at the Gangseo-gu Office of Sale in Busan Metropolitan City, on April 6, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was involved in direct transaction with the client.

2. Determination

A. Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Public Brokerage Act prohibits a certified broker, etc. from doing direct transaction with a client or acting for both parties to a transaction. Here, the brokerage business refers to mediating the transaction, exchange, lease and other rights between the parties to the transaction as to the object of brokerage (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act). Whether an act constitutes a brokerage business must be determined by whether an act of a broker objectively deemed an act of a broker in light of the purport of the legal provisions that aim to protect the parties to the transaction, and whether an act of a broker is objectively deemed an act of arranging or arranging transaction in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5271, Nov. 12, 2004, etc.). The purpose of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Public Brokerage Act is to prohibit a broker from doing direct transaction with the client, which means that the broker directly becomes the counter party to the transaction, such as the transaction requested by the client, and thus, allow the broker to use his/her own information to prevent the transaction, etc.