1. The Defendant’s date of January 22, 2018, recorded in the complaint on December 8, 2017, is the starting date of the period of suspension of business, not the date of disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was indicted by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on September 21, 2015 on the charge of violating the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act that received the limit of statutory brokerage commission exceeding 140,000 won.

B. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant received notice of the result of the above penal punishment from the Nowon-gu Office, and on December 8, 2017, issued a three-month business suspension disposition (from January 22, 2018 to April 21, 2018) on the ground of the Defendant’s violation of Articles 32(1) and 33 subparag. 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground of the Defendant’s violation of the aforementioned penal disposition.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on March 26, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner on the following grounds.

1) Since the brokerage commission of KRW 140,00,00 which was deemed to have been received in excess by an investigation agency was collected later than the brokerage commission that was not received at around 2013, it does not constitute an excess of the brokerage commission. (ii) Even if the fact of receiving the Plaintiff’s brokerage commission is recognized, the instant disposition was conducted 27 months after the date of non-prosecution of the suspension of indictment on the suspicion of violating the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act on the grounds of excess of the brokerage commission. However, even though the disposition of this case was made after approximately 27 months after the date of the disposition of non-prosecution of the suspension of indictment, Article 25(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter “Attachment 2”), subparagraph 12 of Article 25(1) [Attachment