Supreme Court Confirms Fine for Real Estate Agent in 'Property Contract Under Husband's Name' Case... "Direct Transaction"

"Marital Relationship as an Economic Community... Equivalent to 'Direct Transaction'"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A licensed real estate agent who traded a jeonse property under her husband's name was fined by the Supreme Court.

On the 3rd, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Jaeyeon) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing real estate agent A, who was indicted for violating the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, to a fine of 2.5 million KRW.

In October 2019, A was prosecuted for trading a jeonse property listed at a deposit of 390 million KRW in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, under her husband's name while operating real estate.

Article 33, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the current Licensed Real Estate Agents Act stipulates that "a licensed real estate agent shall not directly transact with the client or represent both parties in a transaction." This is to protect clients from harm caused by agents abusing information obtained through transactions for personal gain.

In court, A argued, "I entered into the jeonse contract as an 'agent' on behalf of my husband," and claimed, "I did not directly transact with the client."

The first trial court judged that A had conducted a "direct transaction" and sentenced her to a fine of 5 million KRW. The court pointed out, "The defendant and her husband have an economic community relationship as spouses, and she actually resided in the apartment involved in this case, enjoying the rights of the jeonse contract," and "She did not inform the client that the tenant she was brokering was her husband."

Furthermore, the court added, "She was aware that the client needed to return the previous tenant's jeonse deposit quickly and was looking for a new tenant at a lower price than desired," and "She concluded a contract that caused loss to the client and profit to herself by renting at a price below market value."

The appellate court also found A guilty but reduced the fine to 2.5 million KRW, considering the economic benefit was not significant. The Supreme Court agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "The lower court did not err in its interpretation of the legal principles regarding 'direct transactions with the client' as defined in Article 33, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.