Scope of direct transaction with the client under Article 15 subparagraph 5 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act;

The purpose of Article 15 subparag. 5 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act is to allow a real estate broker, etc. to make a disadvantageous transaction to a brokerage client, using information on the object of brokerage obtained in connection with his/her business, or to make a speculative act deviating from his/her main business, thereby obtaining unjust benefits and preventing any disturbance in real estate transaction order. Thus, the transaction prohibited by the above provision of the Act is only included in the transaction between a client and a real estate broker, etc. who directly requested such brokerage, and it does not include any transaction between a real estate broker and a general party by arranging or mediating other brokers.

Article 15 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

Defendant

The defendant shall be innocent.

The facts charged of this case provide that real estate brokers shall use the above real estate brokerage business with the permission of the above real estate brokerage business on May 14, 1987, and thus, the defendant shall use the above real estate brokerage business to offer good offices for the sale and purchase of the land and other objects of such brokerage business between the parties, and if such brokerage business is not directly traded, the defendant shall use the above real estate brokerage business to offer good offices for the sale and purchase of the real estate within 15 square meters prior to 1988 (detailed lot number omitted), 1,587 square meters prior to 1,587 square meters prior to the sale and purchase of the real estate, 97 square meters prior to 2, 97 square meters prior to the sale and purchase of the real estate, 97 square meters prior to the sale and purchase of the real estate in his own name, 97 square meters prior to 2, 962 square meters prior to the sale and purchase of the real estate, 97 square meters prior to 360 square meters prior to the conclusion.

On the other hand, in full view of the defendant's interrogation protocol on the defendant prepared by the prosecutor as evidence, each statement made by the prosecutor against the defendant, each statement made by the defendant and the non-indicted 8, each statement made by the non-indicted 7, and each statement made by the defendant in the sales contract and each statement made by the defendant in this court, although the defendant is a real estate broker, the defendant purchased each of the real estate recorded in the indictment directly by the non-indicted 1, not purchased the real estate through the brokerage requested by the non-indicted 8, but purchased each of the real estate in the (trade name omitted) which had a usual exchange as the brokerage of the non-indicted 8, and then it is inappropriate to sell the remaining real estate except the non-indicted 516 square meters prior to the date of the indictment, as stated in the indictment, to the non-indicted 8's brokerage and sell it to another person as stated in the indictment.

Thus, each of the above facts acknowledged by the defendant does not constitute an act prohibited under Articles 38(1) and 15 subparag. 5 of the above Real Estate Brokerage Act. Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime or no crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Yong-hoon