Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Act Enforcement Actions in Japan

被処分者の事務所の所在地が確知できないため、宅地建物取引業法第６７条第1項の規定に基づき、令和８年３月１３日付け奈良県公報によりその旨を告示したが、３０日を経過しても、申出がなかったため。

The respondent failed to register the land sale with the designated distribution system and did not report the status of their work to the client at least once a week under the exclusive agency agreement. Additionally, after the agency agreement ended, they posted advertisements for the property online despite being unable to conduct transactions regarding the property. This violates Articles 32 and 34-2, Paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Act, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent violated the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Act on Regulation of Residential Land and Building Transactions by failing to submit change notifications when their employment status changed, and by failing to meet the required number of licensed real estate agents at multiple offices, as well as neglecting necessary measures at those offices.

The respondent received a request to mediate the purchase of land and buildings, accepted it, and commenced mediation activities. However, upon concluding the mediation contract, they did not promptly deliver the mediation agreement to the client.

専任の宅地建物取引士が平成30年10月18日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年5月19日に至るまで約4年7か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和4年3月16日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和7年4月3日に至るまで約3年1か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年2月19日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年12月11日に至るまで約4年10か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和3年8月17日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和7年4月8日に至るまで約3年７か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年1月13日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年9月18日に至るまで約3年8か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和3年1月12日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年8月29日に至るまで約2年8か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和5年2月21日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年3月25日に至るまで約1年1か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年11月4日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年8月28日に至るまで約3年10か月経過した。

The respondent engaged in acting as a landlord agent for a building lease agreement in December of Reiwa 2. In this work, (1) they failed to include the details of registered rights on the property in the written explanation required by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, only listing the type as 'mortgage' without describing the rights' contents; (2) they only included provisions related to contract termination for mid-term cancellation in the explanation and did not include provisions related to breach or penalty cancellations. These actions violate Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 1 and Item 8 of the Act respectively.

The respondent, in February of Reiwa 6 (2024), entered into exclusive brokerage agreements for the sale of two buildings at the request of the owner. In both cases, they failed to include whether an intermediary for building condition surveys was involved in the documents (brokerage contracts) as required by Article 34-2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, and did not register the transactions with the Designated Distribution System. These actions violate Article 34-2, paragraph 1, item 4, and paragraph 5, respectively, of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent entered into a land-only sales contract as a seller in March 2022 and incorrectly stated that the land was incomplete in the document required by the Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Act.

In April of Reiwa 6 (2024), engaged in brokerage activities for building lease agreements. In this activity, failed to have a registered real estate transaction agent sign the document (lease agreement) as required by Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 37, Paragraph 3 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a building lease between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During this activity, they failed to explain about deposit places, did not have a licensed real estate transaction agent sign the lease document as required by law, and mistakenly used pre-legal reform terminology such as "Real Estate Transaction Supervisor," "Transaction Supervisor," and "Transaction Supervisor Certificate" on the disclosure document. These actions violated specific provisions of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Real Estate Transaction Act.

In December of Reiwa 2 (2020), engaged in brokerage work for building lease transactions. In this work, failed to have a real estate transaction specialist sign the document (important matter explanation document) as required by Article 35 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

In December of Reiwa 2 (2020), mediation services were conducted for the leasing of a building. In this process, a real estate transaction specialist did not sign the document (lease agreement) required by Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 37, Paragraph 3 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a building lease between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During this activity, they provided incorrect explanations regarding the location of deposit offices, and mistakenly included pre-amendment terminology such as 'Real Estate Transaction Supervisor,' 'Transaction Supervisor,' and 'Transaction Supervisor Certificate' in the document (Important Matters Explanation) prescribed by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. These actions violate Article 35-2, Item 2, and Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2, of the Act respectively.

The respondent received a fee exceeding the limit specified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's notice, based on the total amount including the construction contract fee for building on the land, in a real estate brokerage transaction between seller A and buyer B in March 2022. This violates Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a building lease between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During this activity, they violated the Act on Real Estate Transactions by failing to include required information in the documents provided to the parties, and received compensation exceeding the statutory limit. Specifically, they violated: (1) Article 35, Paragraph 1, by not including details about legal restrictions, building condition surveys, contract termination conditions related to unapproved absences and anti-social forces, and kitchen facilities in the important matters explanation; (2) Article 37, Paragraph 2, by not including the key money in the lease agreement; and (3) Article 46, Paragraph 2, by receiving remuneration exceeding the limit set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's ordinance, totaling 2.2 times the monthly rent from both parties combined.

In April of Reiwa 6 (2024), engaged in brokerage work for building lease transactions. In this work, failed to have a registered real estate transaction agent sign the document (important matter explanation document) as required by Article 35 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent conducted brokerage activities for the rental of a building between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During these activities, they violated the Act on Real Estate Transactions by failing to have a licensed real estate transaction agent sign the important matters explanation document, which lacked descriptions of legal restrictions, building condition survey status, provisions regarding automatic contract termination if the tenant is absent without notice for over a month, and measures related to exclusion of antisocial forces, as well as details about kitchen facilities. They also failed to include a description of key money in the rental agreement form required by the same law, and received compensation exceeding the statutory limit set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's ordinance, totaling 2.2 times the monthly rent from both the landlord and tenant jointly with a co-broker. These actions violate Articles 35(1), 37(2)(3), and 46(2) of the Act respectively.

The respondent engaged in mediation services for the sale of land between Seller A and Buyer B in March 2022. During this process, they published an advertisement on an internet real estate information site for a 'newly built detached house,' listing both the land and the building before building confirmation was obtained. They also provided an incorrect statement in the 'Overview of security measures for deposits, etc.' section of the document required by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, indicating that the land was an unfinished property. Furthermore, after the contract was concluded and the land could no longer be sold to parties other than Buyer B, the advertisement continued to be posted for at least five days. These actions violate Article 33 and Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent established a new office on August 5, 2025, but did not pay the contribution to the guarantee association for the repayment guarantee deposit within two weeks. This violates the provisions of Article 64-9, Paragraph 2 of the Act.

The respondent conducted internet advertising in February of Reiwa 7 for nine properties located in Shinagawa Ward, Ota Ward, Suginami Ward, Setagaya Ward, and Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo (hereinafter referred to as "the properties"). During this activity, the following violations occurred: (1) Despite the properties being land for sale, the respondent posted building plans and perspective drawings not related to the sale target, and displayed the phrase "newly built detached house," thereby misleadingly advertising the properties as newly built detached houses. (2) For seven of the properties, the respondent advertised that there was a general hospital within a 10-minute walk, despite no such hospital being present within that distance. These acts each violate Article 32 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and fall under Item 2 of Paragraph 2, Article 65 of the same Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities related to a lease agreement for a building located in Katsushika Ward, Tokyo, in April 2023. During this activity, they failed to include in the written document (important matter explanation) the type, content, and registered owner of the rights registered for the property. This constitutes a violation of Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act.

The respondent conducted internet advertising in February of Reiwa 7 (2025) for four properties located in Ota Ward, Suginami Ward, and Setagaya Ward, Tokyo. In this activity, they failed to accurately display the burden related to private roads and engaged in conduct that misled viewers of the advertisement into believing the content was factual, thereby impairing fair trade practices. This constitutes a violation of Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The representative of the respondent falls under the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities related to a building lease agreement concluded in July 2023. The violations include: (1) incorrect recording of the building's location and contract period in the document required by Article 35; (2) falsely indicating the existence of provisions for damages or penalty fees in the important matters explanation document; (3) incorrect recording of the building's location in the document specified by Article 37, Paragraph 2; (4) delivering the lease agreement to the tenant approximately one year after the contract was established. These actions violate the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Real Estate Transaction Act, specifically Articles 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2, and 37, Paragraph 2, Item 1.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities related to a real estate sales contract for land and buildings concluded in June 2025. During this process, violations of the Act on Real Estate Transactions occurred, including failure to provide registration documentation to the seller, deleting the property from the REINS database before contract completion, failing to report higher purchase offers from other prospective buyers, and causing damages to the seller by canceling the contract with a deposit refund after being informed of a higher offer. These violations correspond to specific provisions of the Act on Real Estate Transactions and the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The respondent, on October 24, 2022, caused a person who was not a licensed real estate transaction agent to explain important matters during the sale and purchase contract of a building located in Hiraiso 4-chome, Tarumi-ku, Kobe City. This act violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent violated Article 31-3, Paragraph 1 of the Act by failing to take necessary measures despite the absence of a dedicated real estate transaction specialist. No contractual acts were performed, no damages occurred, and corrective measures were taken. Therefore, an instruction disposition was issued based on Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The officer of the respondent falls under the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Real Estate Business Act. This corresponds to Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the same Act.

Because the location of the office could not be confirmed, a public notice was issued in the Aichi Prefecture Gazette, but no complaints were received after 30 days.

The officer of the respondent was found to fall under the disqualification grounds specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act.

The respondent did not respond without justifiable reason to the scheduled on-site inspection of the office and interviews regarding the suitability of the office and the exclusivity of the designated real estate transaction agent, as stipulated in Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, on July 1, 2025, and on July 30 and August 29, 2025.

The violator transferred and opened a new Kyoto branch without appointing a new full-time real estate transaction specialist after the previous one resigned on August 31, 2022, and failed to report the change accurately. They continued to operate in a non-compliant state until July 18, 2024, when they appointed a new specialist, violating Article 31-3, Paragraph 3 of the Act and Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act.

The respondent failed to appoint a designated real estate transaction specialist within two weeks after the sole designated specialist's license expired.

The respondent issued an exclusive and sole agency agreement to the client that did not include the price of the land, violating Article 34-2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Real Estate Business Act. After the violation was pointed out, they created and used a checklist as a recurrence prevention measure. Since there was no damage to the client and the contract has been completed, a guidance order was issued based on Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Real Estate Business Act.

The respondent lost their position as a member of the Public Interest Incorporated Association Real Estate Guarantee Association on February 1, 2025, but did not deposit the business guarantee money within one week of losing that position. This violates the provisions of Article 64-15, first paragraph, of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

Did not respond without justifiable reason to scheduled interviews and on-site inspections related to the mediation of building lease agreements, and did not report the days when on-site inspections could be conducted.

Made false statements regarding the sewage item in the statement of important matters. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the law and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the law.

Made false statements regarding the sewage item in the statement of important matters. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the law and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the law.

The respondent failed to explain the cancellation based on cooling-off rights in transactions where cooling-off could be exercised. Additionally, despite the cancellation of the contract through cooling-off, they did not promptly return the received deposit of 500,000 yen. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 8, and Article 37-2, Paragraph 3 of the Act, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1.

The officers of the respondent fall under the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. This also corresponds to the provisions of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the same Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a land sale contract concluded in July 2024. In this activity, despite having entered into a brokerage agreement with the buyer, they did not deliver the written document (brokerage contract) specified in Article 34-2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of the main clause of Article 34-2, paragraph 1, and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement in June of Reiwa 6 (2024) for the sale of land and buildings located in Nerima Ward, Tokyo. In this transaction, they failed to register the property's location, size, characteristics, sale price, and other matters specified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Ordinance with the designated distribution organization as required by Article 34-2, Paragraph 5 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 34-2, Paragraph 5 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1.

The respondent engaged in multiple violations related to real estate brokerage activities, including forging real estate agent licenses to have unqualified persons provide explanations of important matters and sign contractual documents, and failing to appoint a dedicated licensed real estate agent as required by law. These actions occurred between April 15, 2022, and February 14, 2024, at multiple offices, and resulted in violations of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, the Act on Regulation of Residential Land and Building Transactions, and the Act on Real Estate Brokerage.

The respondent engaged in 191 cases of real estate brokerage for building rentals between July 19, 2022, and June 8, 2023, during which an individual whose real estate transaction license had expired was permitted to explain important matters as a licensed real estate agent at the Itabashi East Exit branch, a subordinate office. Additionally, in the same period and at the same office, the expired licensee signed contract-related documents issued under Article 37 as a licensed real estate agent for all 191 brokerage cases. Furthermore, during this period and at this office, a situation arose where a dedicated licensed real estate agent was not appointed as required by Article 31-3, Paragraph 1, and despite this, the respondent failed to take necessary measures within two weeks to comply with the regulation. These actions violate the provisions of Article 31-3, Paragraph 3, Article 35, Paragraph 1, and Article 37, Paragraph 3 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a fixed-term building lease agreement concluded in June 2023. During this activity, they failed to explain matters listed in the document prescribed in Article 35 of the Act (the Important Matters Explanation Document) that was provided to the tenant before the contract was established. This constitutes a violation of the main text of Article 35, Paragraph 1, and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent entered into an exclusive mediation contract related to the sale of land and buildings located in Nerima Ward, Tokyo, in June of Reiwa 6 (2024). In this transaction, the respondent included a clause in the contract that automatically renewed the exclusive mediation contract period, thereby circumventing the statutory validity period specified in Article 34-2, Paragraph 3 of the Act. Additionally, the contract contained false statements regarding the validity period that contradicted the intent of the law. This constitutes a violation of Item 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 34-2 of the Act and falls under Item 2, Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a fixed-term building lease agreement concluded in June 2023. In these activities, they limited the description of contract termination matters stipulated in the written explanation (Important Matters Explanation) required by Article 35 of the Act to only citing the clause number, and did not attach a draft of the contract that clearly specified the contents of contract termination at that clause to the explanation, thereby hindering the tenant's understanding of the specific and detailed contents of the contract termination, which damages the fairness of the transaction. Similarly, regarding the scheduled damages and penalty clauses, they only cited the clause number without attaching a draft contract that clearly specified these contents, thereby hindering the tenant's understanding and damaging the fairness of the transaction. These actions correspond to Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities in a building sale contract concluded in January of Reiwa 6. They failed to promptly deliver the written document (brokerage agreement) specified in Article 34-2 of the Act to the brokerage client. This constitutes a violation of the main clause of Article 34-1 of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65.

The respondent entered into a general brokerage contract for the sale of land and buildings in February of Reiwa 5 (2023). In this activity, they displayed on the document (general brokerage contract) prescribed by Article 34-2 of the Act that the contract was based on the standard brokerage agreement prescribed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, but made statements differing from the standard agreement regarding the validity period, payment of costs, and claim for remuneration. This violates Article 34-2, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Act and Item 4 of Article 15-9 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Real Estate Transaction Business Act, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a land sale contract concluded in October 2022. In this activity, they provided a written explanation (Important Matters Explanation) as stipulated in Article 35 of the Act, which contained false information regarding the status of drainage facility development, differing from the actual situation. This constitutes a violation of Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 4, and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent entered into an exclusive agency agreement for the sale of a condominium in July of Reiwa 6. They failed to register the property with the designated distribution system within five days of the contract date. This violates Article 34-2, Paragraph 5 of the Act and Article 15-10 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Real Estate Transaction Act, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities in a building sale and purchase contract concluded in January 2024. They failed to include whether an arrangement for conducting a building condition survey was made in the written document (brokerage contract) as stipulated in Article 34-2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 34-2, Paragraph 1, Item 4, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent failed to renew an exclusive mediation agreement for a land sale contract after its expiration, which is a violation of Article 34-2, Paragraph 4 of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent did not provide mediation contracts in multiple land sale transactions. This violates Article 34-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Brokerage, and falls under Item 2, Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the same Act.

(1) Kirin Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") received a brokerage fee from a client exceeding the limit set by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's notification of remuneration, established pursuant to Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Act. This act violates Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Act. (2) The respondent was found to have engaged in the act of demanding an unreasonably high fee, as prohibited under Item 2 of Article 47 of the Act. This act violates Item 2 of Article 47 of the Act.

The respondent was found to have a business card indicating that a non-employee was engaged in real estate transaction activities using the respondent's license name, which was confirmed through information provided by a third party who received the card. After verifying with the respondent and the license holder, it was determined that the respondent was at least aware of the use of the card. This constitutes a violation of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Act. However, since it is judged that no damage has occurred to any parties and none is expected to occur as a result of this violation, an order under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act is issued.

Izu Taiyo Home Co., Ltd. failed to provide the brokerage agreement documents for 139 out of 403 brokerage contracts conducted between March 14, 2022, and March 1, 2025, violating Article 34-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Additionally, out of 540 real estate transactions conducted in the same period, 519 lacked transaction ledger records, violating Article 49 of the Act. These violations constitute an instruction disposition based on Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

In a real estate sales contract, despite the property not meeting the access road requirements, the seller included a statement indicating that the property did meet the requirements in the important matters explanation document, and had a licensed real estate transaction agent from the company sign and seal it before delivery. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act, and constitutes a 7-day suspension of business under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act. However, since the buyer did not suffer monetary damages, an administrative instruction is issued under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

In a real estate sales contract, despite the residence not meeting the access requirements, the seller included a statement indicating that the access requirements were satisfied in the statement of important matters, and had a licensed real estate transaction agent from their organization sign and seal it before delivery. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, and warrants a suspension of business for 7 days under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act. However, since the buyer did not suffer monetary damages, an administrative instruction was issued under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

In a real estate transaction, despite the residence not meeting the access requirements, the seller included a statement claiming it did in the important matters explanation document, and had a licensed real estate transaction agent from their organization sign and seal the document before delivery. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act and warrants a seven-day suspension of business under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act. However, since the buyer did not suffer financial damages, an administrative instruction is issued under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

LTD. Chiryū Tochi Jūtaku received mediation fees exceeding the amounts specified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in two transactions conducted in June 2020 and February 2021. In one of these transactions, it demanded a fee more than twice the amount specified by the Minister. This violates Article 46, Paragraph 2, and Article 47, Item 2 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations. These facts constitute a violation of Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the same Act.

Attempted to conduct office entry inspections three times from August 20, 2024, based on Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act, to verify business activities and office suitability, but the entity was absent without prior notice and refused without valid reason. Additionally, on January 30, 2025, the entity was requested to submit a report based on Article 72, Paragraph 1, but did not respond without valid reason. This constitutes a violation of Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act and falls under Item 4 of Article 65, Paragraph 2.

Since fiscal year 2022, despite guidance from the enforcement authority regarding violations of the obligation to register with the designated distribution system in exclusive mediation contracts by the respondent, the situation has continued to be such that it cannot be said to have been corrected. This constitutes a violation of Article 34-2, Paragraph 5 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent failed to promptly deliver the written document (sales contract) specified in Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Land and Building Transactions to the seller in two real estate sales brokerage transactions conducted in March 2023. This constitutes a violation of Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for two land and building sale contracts in March 2023. In these activities, they failed to register the properties with the designated distribution system despite concluding exclusive brokerage agreements; did not promptly report to the applicant that a purchase offer had been received; and neglected to delete provisions regarding deposits and deposit cancellations from the sales contract document as the deposit was not exchanged. These actions violated the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations: the first violation contravened Article 34-2, Paragraph 5; the second violated Article 34-2, Paragraph 8; and the third violated Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2.

The person subject to the disposition was sentenced to imprisonment for officers or employees specified by government ordinance on July 10, 2024. This violates the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act.

It was found that a dedicated transaction officer was absent for more than six months. This violates Article 31-3, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent refused to return the deposit received when the client of the real estate transaction withdrew their application for the contract. This violates Article 47-2, Paragraph 3 of the Act and Item 2 of Article 16-11 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Act, and falls under Article 65-2 of the Act.

The respondent engaged employees in their duties without carrying certificates proving they are employees as required by Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Additionally, as of February 13, 2024, the employee register maintained by the respondent pursuant to Article 48, Paragraph 3 of the Act lacked some of the required information specified in Article 17-2, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Real Estate Brokerage Act. These constitute violations of Article 48, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of the Act, respectively.

The respondent falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, which corresponds to Item 3 of Paragraph 1, Article 66 of the same Act.

The respondent submitted an application for a new license for real estate transaction business containing false information, despite being a full-time representative director and licensed real estate transaction agent at the time of application, and being a full-time representative director of another real estate business. This constitutes a violation of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification grounds for licenses stipulated in Article 5 of the law.

The respondent failed to submit a notification within three months from the date of license issuance as required by Article 25, Paragraph 4 of the Act. Additionally, they were urged to deposit a business guarantee deposit by August 15, 2024, based on Article 25, Paragraph 6, but did not report the deposit by the deadline. Furthermore, after receiving the urging, the respondent commenced business without reporting the deposit and caused damages to trading partners. This constitutes a violation of Article 25, Paragraph 5 of the Act, and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 and the preceding paragraph of Item 9 of Article 66 of the Act.

An officer of the respondent was sentenced to a fine for a crime under the Penal Code on November 21, 2020. This constitutes a violation of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act on Land and Building Transactions.

Regarding the establishment of a dedicated real estate transaction agent, the respondent was requested to submit reports based on Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act on three occasions starting June 29, 2021. The respondent did not comply without justifiable reason, resulting in a 15-day suspension of business from February 25 to March 11, 2022. Subsequently, from November 9, 2022, the respondent was requested to submit reports four more times under the same article, but again failed to comply without justifiable reason. This constitutes a violation of Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act and falls under Item 4 of Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Act. The repeated violations after the suspension period are considered particularly serious, thus applicable under Item 9 of Article 66, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent failed to take necessary measures within two weeks after the expiration of the license of the designated real estate transaction agent, despite the absence of the designated agent. This violates Article 31-3, Paragraph 3 of the Real Estate Business Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the same law.

The respondent set a penalty exceeding one-fifth of the purchase price in a land sale contract where they were the seller. This violates Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

The respondent established a new office on July 1, 2024, but did not pay the contribution to the Guarantee Association for Real Estate Transactions within two weeks, violating Article 64-9, Paragraph 2 of the Act and falling under Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Act.

The respondent failed to take necessary measures within two weeks despite having a person designated as the sole dedicated real estate transaction specialist who also served as a representative of another corporation and lacked a dedicated system. This violates Article 31-3, Paragraph 3 of the Act and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

Regarding the establishment of a dedicated real estate transaction specialist, the respondent was requested to submit reports based on Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act on three occasions starting June 29, 2021. The respondent failed to comply without justifiable reason, resulting in a 15-day suspension of business from February 25 to March 11, 2022. Subsequently, from November 9, 2022, on four occasions, the respondent was again requested to report under the same article but did not comply without justifiable reason. This constitutes a violation of Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act and falls under Item 4 of Article 65, Paragraph 2. The repeated violations after the suspension period are considered particularly serious, thus applicable under Item 9 of Article 66, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

It was found that a dedicated transaction officer was absent for approximately eight months. This violates Article 31-3, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Act and falls under Article 65-1 of the Act.

Because the address of the respondent's office could not be confirmed, a public notice was issued in the prefectural official gazette on July 5, 2024, but no application was received from the respondent within 30 days of the notice.

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification reasons for licenses stipulated in Article 5 of the Act.

The respondent received brokerage fees from the client exceeding the amount specified in the remuneration notice established by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, in violation of Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 46, Paragraph 2, and grounds for suspension of business under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act.

It has been found that a director falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act. This corresponds to Item 3 of Paragraph 1, Article 66 of the Act.

In the explanation of important matters in a land sale contract, there were inaccuracies in some facts and deficiencies in the description and explanation regarding restrictions based on laws and regulations. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

Unable to confirm the office location; announced this fact in the official gazette, but no application was received within 30 days. (Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Act)

The officers of the respondent fall under the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Real Estate Business Act. This also corresponds to the provisions of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the same Act.

Takeya Corporation failed to provide a written mediation contract to an individual after accepting and commencing mediation activities for the sale of a building in Kuromachi, Takasaki City, Gunma Prefecture, violating Article 34-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and corresponding to Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

The administrative personnel of the respondent fell under the disqualification grounds specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Act.

It was found that a dedicated transaction officer was absent for over one year. This violates Article 31-3, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Act and falls under Article 65-1 of the Act.

Because the location of the respondent's office could not be confirmed, a public notice was issued in the Saga Prefectural Gazette on April 16, 2024, pursuant to Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. However, no application was received from the respondent within 30 days of the notice. This constitutes a violation of Article 67 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

It has been found that the representative falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act. This corresponds to Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Act.