No real estate broker shall conduct a direct transaction with the client or represent both parties to the transaction.

Nevertheless, around September 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a request from H to sell three lots of building Nos. 103 and 131.72 square meters of the building Nos. 1, 103-1 from H to H in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and the sales office of H; and (b) entered into a sales contract for the commercial building Nos. 103 and 103-1 of the building Nos. 1, 103, 103-1 of the building No. 3 lots of building No. K and the sales price of the building No. 1, 103-1, and the sales price of the building No. 1,000,000,000,000 won.

The Agreement was concluded to the effect that "..."

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

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s commercial building as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from H on June 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant case”).

It is true that the fact that a sales contract was concluded with H by deciding to purchase the purchase price at KRW KRW 30 million (the down payment is KRW 20 million) is recognized, and there is a little doubt about the defendant's assertion on the circumstances or process during which the sales contract was concluded.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence and the record, the facts charged in the instant case where the Defendant directly traded with the client even after having received the request from I for the brokerage of the sale of the instant commercial building from the broker was proven without reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

① At this Court, I would like to make sure that it is difficult for the Defendant to make a substitute deposit as well as sell and purchase the commercial buildings of this case first.