중개의뢰인의 개업공인중개사 배제에 따른 중개보수청구권에 대한 고찰- 일본 판례의 분석을 중심으로 -

Abstract

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.