業務停止 Records in Japan

被処分者は、複数の土地売買契約の媒介において媒介契約書を交付しなかった。このことは法第34条の２第１項に違反し、法第65条第２項第２号に該当する。

被処分者は、令和８年１月２９日に公益社団法人全国宅地建物取引業保証協会の社員の地位を失ったが、当該地位を失った日から１週間以内に営業保証金を供託しなかった。このことは、宅地建物取引業法第６４条の１５前段の規定に違反し、これは同法第６５条第２項第２号に該当すると認められる。

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

R6.9.1からR6.10.1の間に実施した、貸切バスを利用した計13回のツアーにおいて、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃・料金でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を旅行者が受けることをあっせんした。

2024年8月8日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、下限を下回る運賃でバスを貸し切り、旅行者に対して、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供をあっせんした。

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.

令和6年2月7日から同月10日まで及び令和6年3月27日から同月30日までに実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

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.

2023年5月1日から2024年4月30日の間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、旅行サービス手配業としてバス事業者の届出運賃の下限を下回る運賃・料金でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を旅行者が受けることをあっせんした。

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.

令和6年4月7日~同年4月8日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした（旅行業法第13条第3項第2号違反）。

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

令和4年10月6日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

令和4年10月3日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

令和6年4月21日から同月23日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした（旅行業法第13条第3項第2号違反）。

令和6年5月30日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした（旅行業法第13条第3項第2号違反）。

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.

令和5年12月4日に海外の旅行業者により実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（大阪府発着）において、旅行サービス手配業として当該バス事業者の届出運賃の下限を下回る運賃・料金でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を旅行者が受けることをあっせんした。

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.

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.

令和5年3月8日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

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.

令和5年8月1日及び8月6日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、旅行業者として貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和5年8月30日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、旅行業者として貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和5年8月15日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、旅行業者として貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和5年4月から8月までの間、旅行業務取扱管理者を選任せず、又、旅行業務取扱管理者が欠けた状態で旅行業務を行った。

令和5年6月16日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（東京都発着）において、旅行業者として発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

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.

令和5年6月29日に実施された貸切バスによる旅行において、当該バス事業者の営業区域外旅客運送となるバスを手配した.

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.

令和5年5月19日に、貸切バスを利用した旅行（京都府発着）において、発地および着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を旅行者が受けることをあっせんした。

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 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.

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.

The respondent failed to take necessary measures within two weeks to comply with the provisions of Article 31-3, Paragraph 1 of the Act after violating it. This constitutes a violation of Paragraph 3 of the same article and grounds for suspension of business under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

令和4年9月3日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和4年7月12日、同月14日から15日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和4年9月10日及び10月6日に実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

Failed to deposit the business guarantee bond within one week after losing the status of a member of the Real Estate Guarantee Association designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

The respondent violated the Real Estate Business Act in connection with brokerage services for a fixed-term building lease agreement concluded in May 2022. Specifically, they failed to disclose that the property had already been seized and ownership transferred to the successful bidder in the explanation document, violating Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Act. They also did not include information about the property's location on flood hazard maps provided by municipal authorities, violating Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 14(i) of the Act and Article 16-4-3, Item 3-2 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Act.

The respondent failed to include some of the required information in the employee register as of November 10, 2023, which is required under Article 48, Paragraph 3 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. This constitutes a violation of that law.

The respondent, when entering into a land and building sales contract as a seller in July 2022, did not have a licensed real estate transaction agent explain the important matters specified in Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions before the contract was concluded. This constitutes a violation of that law.

The respondent, in April of Reiwa 5 (2023), conducted brokerage activities for a lease agreement between a landlord and a tenant. They had a person who was not a licensed real estate transaction agent explain important matters by phone, and did not provide the proper explanation of important matters in accordance with the law to the tenant. This violates the provisions of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent entered into an exclusive agency agreement for the sale of land and buildings in August of Reiwa 4 (2022). In this transaction, they failed to specify the start and end dates of the validity period of the agency contract in the written document (agency contract) as required by law. This constitutes a violation of Article 34-2, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent entered into an exclusive agency agreement for the sale of land and buildings in February 2022. In this transaction, they failed to include the registration period for the designated distribution system in the written document (brokerage agreement) as required by law. This violates Article 34-2, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent, acting as the seller, entered into a sales contract for a share of a sectional ownership building with an elderly buyer. In this transaction, there were violations of the law: (1) despite the contract including a penalty clause, the amount of the penalty was not stated in the sales agreement; (2) although the location of the property was indicated on the flood hazard map provided by the city, the flood hazard map was described as 'none' in the statement of important matters.

Failed to deposit the business guarantee money within one week after losing the status of a member of the Real Estate Guarantee Association designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Failed to deposit the business guarantee bond within one week after losing the status of a member of the Real Estate Guarantee Association designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Failed to deposit the business guarantee money within one week after losing the status of a member of the Real Estate Guarantee Association designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Failed to deposit business guarantee money within one week after losing the status of a member of the Japan Association of Real Estate Transaction Guarantee Organizations designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

(1) 以下の貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該貸切バス事業者の営業区域外の運行となる運送を手配した（旅行業法第13条第3項第2号違反）。 ア 平成30年11月8日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（東京都発・東京都着） イ 平成30年12月3日から同月7日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（愛知県発・千葉県着） ウ 平成30年12月21日から同月24日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（千葉県発・兵庫県着） エ 平成30年12月29日から平成31年1月1日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（千葉県発・大阪府着） オ 令和元年6月3日から同月6日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（岐阜県発・愛知県着） (2) 以下の貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該貸切バス事業者の届出運賃の下限額を下回る運賃・料金での運送を手配した（旅行業法第13条第3項第2号違反）。 ア 平成31年2月20日から同月24日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行 イ 令和元年7月14日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行

The respondent engaged in brokerage of land transactions but failed to provide the buyer (a real estate business operator) with a statement of important matters. This violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act and constitutes grounds for suspension of business under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2. Additionally, the respondent misunderstood the contents of the remuneration notice established by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism based on Article 46, Paragraph 1, and received brokerage fees exceeding the amount specified in the notice from the client. This violates Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Act and constitutes grounds for suspension of business under Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2.

平成31年4月28日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

平成31年4月13日から20日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

平成31年3月7日から9日までの期間及び同月18日から20日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

平成31年4月15日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（兵庫県発・大阪府着）及び同月16日から20日までの期間に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行（和歌山県発・東京都着）において、当該バス事業者の営業区域外旅客運送となるバスを手配した。

令和3年8月17日に実施された貸切バスを利用した旅行において、当該バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配した。

The respondent failed to comply with reporting orders based on Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act, despite being requested three times between July and August of Reiwa 5 (2023) regarding the handling of purchase deposits (equivalent to deposits) received in September of Reiwa 4 (2022). This constitutes a violation of Item 4, Paragraph 2, Article 65 of the Act.

当該旅行業者が令和4年10月12日に、貸切バス事業者に旅客運送をさせたが発着地いずれもが貸切バス事業者の営業区域外であり、道路運送法第20条に違反していた。

During the explanation of important matters, a person without a real estate transaction agent qualification signed and stamped the documents, which violates the provisions of Article 35, Paragraph 1, of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent failed to properly supervise its employees, who created fictitious sales contracts and receipts by impersonating others to prevent the sale of land within a planned development to third parties, fearing the plan would collapse if the land was sold outside the client. The employees also filed a provisional attachment request and a damages lawsuit without authorization using these forged documents. The respondent's negligence in management allowed these misconducts to occur, constituting unfair or significantly unjust acts related to real estate transactions.

The respondent failed to comply with four requests to visit the agency for reporting purposes based on Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act between February and June of Reiwa 5 (2023), without justifiable reasons, despite being asked to do so. This constitutes a violation of Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act and falls under Item 4, Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

The respondent used their license name to allow another real estate business operator to advertise on a real estate information site for the purpose of engaging in real estate transactions, from at least May 22, 2023. This constitutes a violation of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

In the mediation of a land sale contract, the mediator failed to deliver the mediation agreement to the buyer, who is the client, which violates Article 34-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Additionally, the mediator did not provide an explanation of important matters to the buyer, which violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent operated branch offices without a license from March 2012 to June 2022, and decided to share sales revenue with unlicensed businesses, violating Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Additionally, in mediating the sale of inexpensive land, the respondent received compensation from the buyer exceeding the amount permitted for real estate agents under Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Notification No. 493, violating Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Act.

The respondent established a new office and commenced real estate transaction business by February 9, 2023, at the latest, but failed to pay the contribution to the guarantee association within two weeks. This violates Article 64-9, Paragraph 2 of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Act.

The respondent permitted a person registered as a dedicated real estate transaction agent with the prefecture to perform duties for another real estate transaction business operator, which violated Article 31-3, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Despite this, the respondent did not take necessary measures within two weeks to comply with the provisions of that paragraph. This act violates Article 31-3, Paragraph 3 of the Act and constitutes grounds for suspension of business under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Act.

Did not include the cancellation of contract by cooling-off in the written document (important matter explanation) as specified in Article 35 of the law.

Received fees exceeding the prescribed limit from both the landlord and tenant, including the tenant's intermediary, during the brokerage of four lease agreements.

Failed to promptly deliver the written document (mediation contract) specified in Article 34-2 of the Act to the seller after concluding a mediation agreement.

Despite the absence of earnest money, the documents specified in Article 35 (Explanation of Important Matters) and Article 37, Paragraph 1 (Sales Contract) of the Act stated that earnest money was present.

In two brokerage contracts, the contract documents indicated that they were based on the standard brokerage agreement terms, but did not use the contract documents established by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Failed to investigate and inform the buyer about the fact that the building does not conform to the Building Standards Act (Act No. 201 of 1950), which is an important criterion for the buyer's decision-making.

Made false or misleading representations in advertisements for building rentals on the internet, claiming the property was available for transaction when a rental agreement had already been concluded and the property was no longer available, and mislabeling the transaction type as 'general' instead of 'mediation'.

In August 2022, during the brokerage of a building lease agreement, the following violations occurred: (1) failure to explain the written document (Important Matters Explanation) as required by Article 35 of the Act before the contract was concluded; (2) the Important Matters Explanation only listed the registered rights on the building as 'mortgage rights' without detailing their specific contents; (3) the explanation did not include or describe the presence or absence of legal restrictions related to the building's lease as required by law; (4) despite the flood hazard map provided by the city where the property is located indicating flood risk, the Important Matters Explanation falsely stated that there was no flood hazard.

法施行（令和２年12月15日）以降、対象物件の所有者と締結をした特定賃貸借契約において、法第30条の規定に違反して、当該所有者に対し、同条の書面を交付しなかった。

平成31年4月20日に実施した貸切バスを利用した募集型企画旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

① 平成30年8月19日から20日、同月23日から24日、同月25日から26日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。 ② 平成30年9月15日から17日、同月14日から16日、同月14日から18日、同月16日から18日、同月12日から16日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。 ③ 平成30年12月6日から9日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。 ④ 平成30年12月25日から27日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（大阪府発・静岡県着）において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。 ⑤ 平成31年2月6日から9日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和元年5月12日から17日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（東京都発・岡山県着）において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和元年9月21日から24日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（大阪府発・千葉県着）及び同月26日から29日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（千葉県発着）において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和元年6月18日、同月24日から27日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行において、貸切バス事業者が届け出ている運賃・料金の下限を下回る運賃でバスを手配し、道路運送法第9条の2第1項に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

令和元年6月23日から25日にかけて実施した貸切バスを利用した旅行（千葉県発着）において、発地及び着地のいずれもがその営業区域外に存する旅客の運送を行った貸切バスを手配し、道路運送法第20条に違反するサービスの提供を受けることをあっせんした。

The respondent forged a document called a 'Sale Consent Form' related to the mediation of land sales and delivered it to the buyer’s intermediary. This act corresponds to Item 5, Paragraph 2, Article 65 of the Act.

新安城駅において令和4年8月23日から令和5年1月10日までの間、旅行業務取扱管理者の長期不在の状態で、19件の旅行業務に関する契約を締結していた。