[2] The purport and legal nature of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act prohibiting a practicing licensed real estate agent, etc. from engaging in direct transactions with the client (=regulation regulations)

[2] The purport of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act prohibiting a practicing licensed real estate agent, etc. from engaging in direct transactions with clients lies in cases where a practicing licensed real estate agent, etc. causes damage to the client's interest by using information that he/she has become aware of in the transaction, thereby preventing the client from protecting the client. Thus, in violation of the above provision, one transaction in violation of the above provision cannot be deemed to have significantly anti-sociality and anti-divity to the extent that it should not be denied the validity of the private law, and the legislative purpose can only be avoided only if it is denied the judicial effect of the act. In light of the validity provision, in a case where the transaction in violation of the above provision is uniformly null and void, the transaction for which the broker is aware that it is a direct transaction and thus, it is likely to undermine the safety of the transaction. Thus, the above provision

1. In a case where a contract or other legal act is performed in violation of a specific legal provision prohibiting a certain act, whether the juristic act is null and void, or whether the court refuses assistance in the realization of the contents of a legal act, or otherwise, its effect is limited is part of the matter concerning the legal effect within the broad sense of the relevant legal provision, and in other cases, it is determined by any interpretation of the relevant legal provision. Therefore, if there is a clear provision on that point, it must be followed as a matter of course, and if there is no such provision, it shall be ultimately determined by examining whether it is necessary to restrict the invalidation or effect of a legal act against it in light of the purpose and meaning of the prohibition provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75119, Dec. 23, 2010, etc.).

The purpose of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act prohibiting a practicing licensed real estate agent, etc. from engaging in direct transactions with clients is to protect clients by using information, etc. which a practicing licensed real estate agent, etc. has become aware of in the transaction in order to gain his/her own interest. Thus, in violation of the above provision, one transaction in violation of the above provision cannot be deemed to have significantly anti-sociality and anti-divity to the extent that it should not be denied even its judicial effect, and it cannot be deemed that the legislative purpose can only be achieved only when denying its judicial effect. In light of the validity provision, in a case where the transaction in violation of the above provision is uniformly null and void, the validity of the transaction in violation of the provision is denied on the ground that the broker is a direct transaction with the knowledge that it is a direct transaction, and thus, it is likely to undermine the safety of the transaction. Thus, the above provision should be deemed

2. Nevertheless, the lower court deemed Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act to be a mandatory provision and determined that the instant sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff, the broker, and the Defendant, the licensed real estate agent, was null and void. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity, mandatory provision, etc. of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)