The defendant's business suspension against the plaintiff on February 14, 2020 shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a brokerage office under the trade name called “B Authorized Brokerage Office” and completed the report on employment of a brokerage assistant to C on November 25, 2015.

B. On August 24, 2019, C entered into a sales contract with the buyer D and E on the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The said sales contract is written by the Plaintiff and H real estate brokerage office as an authorized broker operating the “H real estate brokerage office.”

(c)

The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of prohibiting direct transaction with the client under Article 33 subparagraph 6 of the former Certified Private Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 16489, Aug. 20, 2019; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), on February 14, 2020, pursuant to Article 39 (1) 11 of the former Certified Private Brokerage Act; Article 25 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Certified Private Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 805, Jan. 12, 2021); [Attachment Table 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Land Traffic Regulation and Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 805, Feb. 21, 2020) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to be revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Since the instant disposition was not specifically presented at the time of the instant disposition, there is a defect in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

2) Since D and E, the purchaser of the instant apartment, merely requested I to act as a broker and did not request Plaintiff B and C to act as a broker, there is no reason for the instant disposition.

B. 1) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, the parties shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition. This excludes arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency.