The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant, a broker under the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), arranged that I purchase the secured debt on which the right to collateral security, which is subject to the right to collateral security (hereinafter “D Association”), is established, for M three parcels of land at two weeks, from D Association and obtain a successful bid at a lower price after filing a request for auction.

According to the former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, the upper limit of the brokerage commission that the defendant can receive is 5,670,000 won.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, entered into a sales contract for the secured claim established by the mortgage as mentioned above with D Association and I, received from I a total of KRW 50 million on May 15, 2013, and KRW 50 million on June 25, 2013, as successful example expenses.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced a fine of KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s brokerage is a “claim” itself, and the instant facts charged did not constitute a brokerage object under the former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and appealed by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, by asserting that the instant facts charged do not constitute the constituent elements.

Before remanding, I appears to have taken over the claim against E by acquiring the right to collateral security from D Association and acquired the right to collateral security from the land of this case, and then proceed with the auction procedure and take over the above claim for the purpose of winning the successful bid. Thus, from the time of taking over the above claim, it would have been naturally planned that the right to collateral security on the land of this case will be transferred between the parties, and therefore, the defendant arranged to I with the transfer of the claim against D Association E.