If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

A person who operates a real estate brokerage office shall not conduct direct transactions with the client or act as an agent for both parties to the transaction.

Nevertheless, at around 20:00 on August 19, 2012, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the broker by purchasing KRW 154,00,000 of the purchase price by the Defendant’s housing in the Dae-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Jung-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, which was requested to sell from E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in each part of the trial records first and second times;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect of G;

1. Statement of each police statement of H and E;

1. Accusation against a violator of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a petition;

1. Article 48 Subparag. 3 of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) regarding facts constituting an offense; Articles 33 Subparag. 6 and 33 of the Act on Report of Real Estate Transactions; selection of fines

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the content of purchasing a house owned by E, the Defendant did not have received a request for brokerage of the said house.

2. Determination

A. Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act prohibit a broker, etc. from engaging in direct transactions with a client. The purport of prohibiting such direct transactions is to protect the client by using information, etc. known to the broker, etc. in order to seek his/her benefit if such prohibition is allowed so that the client does not harm the client’s interest by using such information, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 90Do1872 delivered on November 9, 1990