earticle

영어

The present review is to review and compare between Korea's Civil Code Amendment, 2004 and Japan's Civil Code(Obligationenrecht) Amendment, 2009 and also to assist further amendment by reviewing problems of Korea's Civil Code Amendment, based on above comparison. This review is concluded with comments about necessity of named contractualization of listing contract in Korea. As of current law, 'commercial law' defines about broker and agent related to commercial listing and 'the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act' defines about real estate agents. However, there is no common rules which is applied to all of commercial listing, real estate agent and of other types of listing or agents. Therefore, in case of real estate agent, legal characteristics of listing contract related to broker's 'duty of care of a good manager' and 'right to request for payment' are debatable and the precedent identifies this as delegation contract as of civil law. At the same time, it doesn't equally apply rules of delegation contract to listing contract's characteristics such as 'principal of contingent fee'. If this is the case, it is meaningful to change listing contract(as an individual contract type) to named contract by civil law. Civil Code Amendment, 2004, however, shows poor definition about the concept of listing contract and there is no comments related to minimum duty for broker to collect and distribute data at all. Futhermore, it surely adapt the 'principal of contingent fee' but, at the same time, it limits the 'right to request/claim the reimbursement of expenses/cost' only in case of special contract(rider) and it also tells that the 'right to request/claim the reimbursement of expenses/cost' should be ineffective in case of listing of both parties. This can be considered as too strict limitations.