1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 17, 2014 to October 16, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Article 33 subparag. 6 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act prohibit a broker, etc. from "act of making a direct transaction with a client or acting for both parties to a transaction." This is because, although a licensed real estate agent has to fulfill his/her duty of due care for the interest of a client in handling the affairs delegated by a client, it is difficult for a licensed real estate agent to expect such good faith for a client under conflict of interests, such as a case where a licensed real estate agent makes a direct transaction with a client or represents both parties to a transaction.

However, even if a licensed real estate agent acts on behalf of both parties to a transaction, if the client consented thereto, it may be exceptionally permitted. However, even in such a case, a licensed real estate agent must provide the broker with information about the situation of conflict of interest so that the broker may decide whether to give consent after sufficiently considering the fact that the situation of conflict of interest may affect the client's own interest.

In light of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 17, and 18 of this case, the defendant, when acting as a broker, may recognize the fact that C, the purchaser, was acting as a broker on behalf of both the plaintiff and the purchaser without notifying the plaintiff that he was his wife. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of his relationship with the purchaser, thereby infringing upon the decision-making right as to whether to consent of both parties. Thus, the defendant suffered from mental suffering of the plaintiff.