License Revocation Records in Japan

事務所の所在地を確知できず、公報にてその旨を公告したが30日を経過しても申出がなかった。（法第67条第１項）

被処分者の代表者が、法第5条第1項第6号に該当する者であることが判明した。このことは、法第66条第1項第3号の規定に該当する。

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

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 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.

被処分者の事務所の所在が確知できないので、法第67条の規定に基づき、令和7年6月17日付兵庫県公報にその旨公告したが、30日を経過しても申し出がなかったことから、免許取消とする。

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

On September 4, 2023, a supervision order was issued based on Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Act (a 15-day business suspension from September 25 to October 9, 2023). Despite this, the entity violated the order by posting advertisements on the internet during the suspension period (applicable under Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 9, latter part). Furthermore, on September 29, 2023, the entity failed to comply with a reporting order issued under Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Act. The business suspension order was imposed four times, and the failure to comply with the reporting orders was the cause. Repeated violations of this nature are considered particularly serious under Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 9, preceding part.

It was found that an employee defined under Ordinance Article 2-2 falls under Item 5 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Act. This corresponds to Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Act.

The respondent was sentenced to a fine for violating the Real Estate Business Act on November 15, 2023, and this constitutes a violation of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act. This falls under Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same Act.

The officer of the respondent falls under the provisions of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act on Land and Building Transaction Business (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This corresponds to the provisions of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.

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

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

The respondent was ordered to suspend all real estate transaction business activities for 30 days from May 21, 2023, to June 19, 2023, based on Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. However, the respondent continued to post advertisements related to real estate transactions on an internet advertising bulletin board site after May 21, 2023. This constitutes a violation of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

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

The officer of the entity subject to the disposition falls under the disqualification reasons specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act.

The respondent conducted business without filing a deposit of the business guarantee money with the prefecture. This violates Article 25, Paragraph 5 of the Act. Based on Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Act, a 30-day suspension of business was imposed on December 20, 2022, from January 4 to February 2, 2023. However, the respondent did not file the deposit after the suspension period ended. These facts constitute a violation of Article 25, Paragraph 5 of the Act, and fall under the provisions of Article 65, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and the preceding paragraph of Article 66, Item 9 of the Act.

The respondent submitted an application for license renewal of a real estate transaction business to the prefecture, falsely indicating that a person who was not engaged as a dedicated real estate transaction agent was the dedicated agent at the office, and made it appear as if the agent was engaged at the office, despite the absence of a dedicated agent. This act was performed through fraudulent means and constitutes a violation of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

A person who was the representative director was found to have been a person corresponding to Item 5, Paragraph 1, Article 5 of the Act during their tenure as representative director. This corresponds to Item 3, Paragraph 1, Article 66 of the Act.

The officer of the respondent falls under the disqualification reasons stipulated in Article 5 of the Act. This constitutes grounds for the cancellation of the license of the real estate transaction business operator as specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Act.

The officer of the respondent was found to have a disqualifying reason specified in Article 5 of the Act. This constitutes grounds for the cancellation of the license of a real estate transaction business operator as stipulated in Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.

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

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification grounds for license specified in Article 5 of the Act. (Article 66, Paragraph 1)

It was found that an employee defined under Ordinance Article 2-2 falls under Item 5 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Act. This corresponds to Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Act.

The representative of the entity subject to the disposition was found to fall under the disqualification grounds specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act.

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification grounds for licensing stipulated in Article 5 of the Act. (Article 66, Paragraph 1)

The representative director of the respondent has a confirmed sentence of a 300,000 yen fine for injury on May 2, 2020. This constitutes a violation of Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.

The officer of the respondent falls under the disqualification grounds for license specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act. This constitutes grounds for the cancellation of the license of a real estate transaction business operator as stipulated in Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.

Because the location of the respondent's office could not be confirmed, a public notice was issued in the prefectural official gazette on February 22, 2022, but no application was received from the respondent within 30 days of the advertisement.

Because the address of the respondent's office could not be confirmed, a public notice was issued in the prefectural official gazette dated February 22, 2022, but no application was received from the respondent within 30 days of the advertisement.

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 3 of the Act.

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

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification grounds for licensing stipulated in Article 5 of the Act. (Article 66, Paragraph 1)

Because the respondent's office address could not be confirmed, it was announced in the Kagoshima Prefecture Public Notice. No application was received from the respondent within 30 days of the announcement.

On September 20, 2019, after losing the status of a member of the Guarantee Association, the entity failed to deposit the business guarantee money within one week as required by Articles 25(1) to (3) of the Act. This constitutes a violation of the preceding paragraph of Article 64-15 of the Act (deposit of business guarantee money when losing the status of a member). Based on Article 65(2), Item 2 of the Act, a suspension of business for 30 days was imposed on March 31, 2020, and a recommendation was made to deposit the guarantee money by November 30, 2021. The entity did not comply with the recommendation nor report the deposit by the deadline.

On September 1, 2021, the individual lost their position as a member of the Guarantee Association. Within one week of losing this position, they were required to deposit a business guarantee deposit in accordance with Articles 25(1) to (3) of the Act but failed to do so. This constitutes a violation of the preceding paragraph of Article 64-15 of the Act (deposit of business guarantee deposit when losing the status of a member). Based on Article 65(2), Item 2 of the Act, on October 28, 2021, a measure was imposed on the business operator to suspend operations for 30 days, and a recommendation was made to deposit the business guarantee deposit by the end of the suspension period. The operator did not comply with the recommendation nor submit a notification of deposit by the deadline.

The respondent falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act on Land and Building Transaction Business, which also corresponds to Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the same Act.

Among the officers, there was a person who falls under the disqualification grounds for license stipulated in Article 5 of the Act. (Article 66, Paragraph 1)

It has been found that the representative falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act. This corresponds to Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.

The officer of the respondent falls under the disqualification grounds specified in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Act.

It has been found that the representative falls under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Act. This corresponds to Article 66, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Act.