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

1. From around March 2015, the Defendant: (a) from around 2015, the Defendant: (b) was a person operating “C” in the Mapo-si B commercial building; and (c) requested D real estate brokers in the above commercial building to arrange for the transfer of the above tasks at KRW 25 million.

On February 1, 2019, the Defendant, at the “G Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office” office operated by the Victim F in the above shopping mall E, mediated the factory room in a coffee shop, and there was a dispute as to whether the business shop was located in the same kind of business as the victim.

Around February 16, 2019, the Defendant: “G Licensed Real Estate Agent (H Real Estate) who has given up his/her minimum morality” under the title “G Licensed Real Estate Agent (hereinafter “G Real Estate) was changed to the owner of the G Real Estate,” thereby impairing the principle of the same or similar occupation shop occupants (excluding the agreed category of business) that our members have maintained for win-win, and promoted and entered into a contract with C in the same line of business for three years from his/her immediate next shop. In particular, during this process, the Defendant promised to cancel the contract by returning the down payment to the lessee. However, the G Real Estate was led by the conclusion of the contract, not the cancellation of the contract, and the fact that C is aware of the fact that there is no conflict with the commercial Real Estate Agent’s bylaws, which is in the future in the commercial real estate market where C does not enter the same or similar type of business.”

This lease contract is the datum, and the commercial building members are sacrifies and promises to prevent recurrence for this day which can be seen as the whole of our commercial buildings, and the commercial building members are sacrifies.