초록 열기/닫기 버튼
본 연구는 중개의뢰인이 개업공인중개사를 배제하고 직접 또는 제3의 개업공인중개사를 개입시켜 부동산매매 등의 계약을 체결한 경우에, 배제된 개업공인중개사의 중개보수청구권을 어떻게 할 것인가를 놓고 일본의 판례 및 학설을 참조하여 그 해결방안을 모색하고 있다. 본고에서는 중개의뢰인이 부동산 중개계약이 체결된 개업공인중개사를 배제하고 직접 또는 제3의 개업공인중개사를 개입시켜 부동산매매 등의 계약을 체결한 사안과, 거래성사가 거의 이루어진 상태에서 중개의뢰인이 개업공인중개사와의 부동산중개계약을 해지한 후 직접 또는 제3의 개업공인중개사를 개입시켜 부동산매매 등의 계약을 체결한 사안으로 나누어, 배제된 개업공인중개사의 중개보수청구권 문제를 다루고 있다. 판례는 개업공인중개사의 중개보수청구권을 판단함에 있어서 이를 중개의뢰인과 개업공인중개사 사이에 체결된 부동산중개계약의 해지여부와는 상관없이 다루고 있으며, 개업공인중개사의 중개보수청구권에 대한 법적 근거로서우리 민법 제150조 내지 제686조 제3항을 준용하고 있다. 여기서, 위 판례와 학설이 우리 민법 제150조 및 제686조 제3항을 적용하여위 문제를 해결함에 불합리한 점들이 있다는 점에서, 본고에서는 이러한 점들을 구체적으로 비판한 후 상당인과관계설에 의하여 위 문제에 대한 해법을 제시하고 있다.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the problem of brokerage right ofbrokerage firm brokerage of real brokerage firms in the case of intermediary clientwho concluded contracts such as real estate brokerage with the counterparty directlyor through third party brokerage house, After examining the precedents and theories,the focus is on finding solutions for this problem in Korea. In this study, we propose a case where the intermediary client does not terminatethe real estate brokerage contract with the real estate brokerage firm and concludesthe real estate brokerage contract with the counterparty, after the intermediary clienthas terminated the real estate brokerage contract with the practicing real estatebroker, the real estate broker is excluded and the matters entered into by the thirdparty broker are entered into the intermediary client we have reviewed and examinedthe issue of the right to claim the intermediary compensation. In this case, it can beseen that the judge does not differentiate between the brokerage rights of thepractitioner brokers according to whether or not the intermediary client has canceledthe real estate brokerage contract between the brokerage firm. In addition, regardlessof whether or not the intermediary client has terminated the real estate brokeragecontract between the brokerage firms, the court may apply Article 150 of the CivilAct as a legal ground for the right to request brokerage and rehabilitation of realestate brokers in accordance with individual cases, (3) of the Act shall apply mutatismutandis. However, as a result of reviewing the precedents and doctrines, it was found that there are some unreasonable points in applying the Article 150 of theCivil Act or applying Article 686 (3) of the Civil Act to solve this problem. Therefore, I think that it is a causal relation to be able to draw reasonableconclusions without difficulty in solving this problem.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
real estate broker, brokerage right, real estate brokerage contract, intermediary client, revocation of real estate brokerage contract
