不動産仲介契約의 契約責任에 관한 硏究 = (A)study on civil liability of real estate listing contract

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The present study purposed to explain principles related to the legal structure of real estate listing(brokerage) contracts and, based on them, to discuss contract liability. Thus, the structure of this paper is as follows. First, with regard to the legal structure of real estate listing contracts, we analyze the history of real estate listing contracts, legislation cases in several countries, and the legislation process in Korea. Moreover, we examine the legal principles of real estate listing contracts based on relevant theories and judicial precedents, and formulate the legal principles of real estate listing contracts.
Next, this study considers contract liabilities in real estate brokers and real estate brokerage clients, dividing them into liability for non‐performance under contract and that as the violation of obligation by law, and analyzes contract liabilities focused on liabilities for damages. Lastly, we analyze legal issues related to real estate listing contracts centering on various contents observed in the amendment of the Civil Code.
In this study, we also clarify the characteristics and legal structure of real estate listing contracts and make a comparative analysis of foreign legislation cases for real estate listing contracts, concentrating on liabilities for damages as contract liabilities in real estate listing contracts. Aiming to save victims of various types of non‐performance in real estate listing contracts, this study analyzes irrational regulations on the protection of brokerage clients and real estate brokers’ excessive liabilities for damages, identifies problems in them, and delimits compensation for damages. That is, the legal principles of liabilities for damages as contract liabilities are the main subjects of this study.
Accordingly, Chapter II of this paper studies the legal structure of real estate listing contracts to see the unique features of the contracts through analyzing the history and legislation cases of real estate listing contracts in Korea including Korean traditional brokerage contracts and examining theories and judicial precedents related to the legal principles of real estate listing contracts. Chapter III is a study on contract liabilities in real estate listing contracts, defining the scope and limitations of compensation for damages through examining each party’s duties and responsibilities based on the bilateralism of real estate listing contracts. Chapter IV analyzes the contents of written opinions on brokerage contracts in the amendment of the Civil Code concerning legal issues related to real estate listing contracts, criticizes them, and suggests how to improve them. Chapter V summarizes the discussion and draws conclusions, suggesting the establishment of legal principles for contract liabilities in the parties of real estate listing contracts, namely, real estate broker and real estate brokerage clients and methods of settling sound real estate listing contracts for the protection of contract parties based on contract liabilities.
Through this study, we found that the contract parties of a real estate listing contract, namely, the real estate broker and the brokerage client are in a bilateral relation with each other and the contract is an onerous contract in principle. Thus, it was concluded that in a real estate listing contract the contract parties have compensatory contract liabilities to each other by the principles of the contract law. That is, if either of the contract parties neglects the fulfillment of its obligation under the contract or violates any incidental duty, it should assume contract liabilities. The violation of such contract liabilities produces liabilities for damages. Accordingly, the two parties of a real estate listing contract must assume liabilities for damages as contract liabilities in case they as the subjects of the contract violate the contract. Up to now, according to market practices, heavy contract liabilities have been placed only on real estate brokers and compensations for damages have been claimed.
However, the results of this study show that brokerage clients commissioning the transaction of real estate have obligations and liabilities equivalent to real estate brokers’. Particularly in real estate listing contracts, which are onerous contracts in principle, both real estate brokers and brokerage clients are given rights and duties corresponding to their roles. That is, real estate brokers can claim brokerages, expenses or actual costs corresponding to the success of brokerage, difficulty and specialty of brokerage activities, differences in cost, the period of activity, etc. In addition, brokerage clients can claim against real estate brokers brokerage activities and the fulfillment of various obligations.
From the results of this study were drawn conclusions as follows.
First, a real estate listing contract is a bilateral contract. Thus, it raises the question of the right of plea for concurrent accomplishment. The real estate broker’s obligation to examine and explain about the object of brokerage is in a bilateral relation with the brokerage client’s obligation to pay the reward and acknowledge the relation in the fulfillment, so they are in the relation of concurrent accomplishment. Accordingly, the real estate broker who has not received the brokerage may not fulfill the obligation to examine and explain about the object of brokerage.
On the other hand, because a real estate listing contract is an onerous contract, the brokerage client must not hinder the establishment of the right to claim repair in the real estate broker who holds the right to claim repair. What is more, each party has a liability for reparation in case the party terminates the brokerage contract when the opposite party is in a disadvantageous position and causes a loss to the opposite party. Because the real estate broker has to pay the expenses of surveying and investigation through brokerage activities, collected information on real estate is the real estate broker’s working capital. Therefore, it is violating the real estate broker’s right to its working capital to disclose real estate information provided by the real estate broker to a third party without the broker’s consent. If the brokerage client discloses confidences and violates the real estate broker’s rights, it is under obligation to compensate for damages.
Therefore, in order to clarify contract liabilities in real estate brokerage contracts, it is most desirable to legislate based on bilateralism as discussed concerning legal issues in real estate listing contracts.
Second, what are required in the legislation are: 1) unification of the contract law; 2) documentation of real estate listing contracts; 3) sub‐division of brokerage rewards and contract liabilities; and 4) guarantee of contract justice and contract liabilities.
Third, a real estate listing contract is very important for sound real estate transaction. Contract parties, namely, real estate brokers and brokerage clients must assume obligations and responsibilities suitable for contact justice.
If the Civil Code is amended and the Brokerage Act is enacted, legal principles on the bilateralism of real estate listing contracts should be established. On the other hand, there should be partial revisions in various obligations and penalties for the violation of the obligations as provided in the Act on Certified Real Estate Agents’ Services and the Report of Real Estate Transaction, which is enforced for administrative regulation.
On the other, certified real estate agents and their assistants working under the supervision of real estate brokers have responsibilities as the aids for the fulfillment of contracts, so the question of obligations related to their safety will be raised. To cope with the question, if the tentatively called Certified Real Estate Agent Act is established, the role of real estate brokerage by those with a specialist certificate will be strengthened in real estate transaction.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 第I章 序 論 1
• 第1節 硏究의 目的 1
• I. 不動産仲介契約 形態의 變化 1
• II. 硏究動向 4
• 第2節 問題의 提起 7
• I. 民法改正案의 仲介契約에 나타난 示唆點 7
• II. 契約責任의 雙務性 問題 8
• III. 契約法의 統一化 問題 10
• IV. 不動産仲介契約의 書面化 問題 11
• V. 不動産仲介報酬의 細分化와 契約責任의 問題 15
• VI. 契約正義와 契約責任의 保障 問題 16
• 第2節 硏究의 範圍와 方法 18
• I. 硏究의 範圍 18
• II. 硏究의 方法 19
• 第II章 不動産仲介契約의 法的 構造論 21
• 第1節 不動産仲介契約의 沿革과 立法例 21
• I. 沿革 21
• II. 外國의 立法例 22
• 1. 美國 22
• 1) 不動産仲介契約 22
• 2) 詐欺防止法 25
• 3) 債務不履行과 損害賠償 26
• 4) 不動産仲介의 節次 27
• 5) 示唆點 28
• 2. 英國 29
• 1) 不動産仲介契約 29
• 2) 不動産去來節次 30
• 3) 示唆點 31
• 3. 프랑스 31
• 1) 不動産仲介契約 31
• 2) 仲介報酬 32
• 3) 示唆點 33
• 4. 獨逸 33
• 1) 獨逸 仲介業의 沿革 33
• 2) 獨逸 民法에서의 民事仲介契約 34
• 3) 獨逸 民法상 仲介契約의 形態 36
• 4) 示唆點 39
• 5. 스위스 40
• 1) 스위스 債務法上의 仲介契約과 委任契約의 包括規定 40
• 2) 不動産仲介契約의 性格 42
• 3) 示唆點 43
• 6. 中國 43
• 1) 民事法의 變遷 43
• 2) 統一契約法 45
• 3) 示唆點 45
• 7. 日本 46
• 1) 不動産媒介契約의 意義 46
• 2) 不動産媒介契約의 性質 47
• 3) 不動産媒介人의 媒介報酬 49
• 4) 示唆點 50
• III. 우리나라의 立法過程 51
• 1. 慣習法上의 居間制度 51
• 2. 民事仲介와 商事仲介의 分化 61
• 3. (舊)紹介營業法上의 紹介契約 66
• 4. (舊)不動産仲介業法上의 不動産仲介契約 72
• 5. 公認仲介士의 業務 및 不動産去來申告에 관한 法律上의
• 不動産仲介契約 73
• 第2節 不動産仲介契約의 法理構成 76
• I. 序說 76
• II. 典型契約으로 구성하려는 立場 77
• 1. 雇傭契約 類似說 77
• 2. 都給契約 類似說 80
• 3. 委任契約 類似說 82
• 4. 懸賞廣告契約 類似說 85
• III. 混合契約으로 구성하려는 立場 : 混合契約說 88
• 1. 根據 88
• 2. 2개 이상의 典型契約으로 구성된 不動産仲介契約 88
• 3. 典型契約과 非典型契約이 混合된 不動産仲介契約 89
• 4. 檢討 89
• IV. 結語 90
• 第3節 不動産仲介契約의 獨自性 91
• I. 序說 91
• II. 不動産仲介契約의 特質 92
• 1. 不動産仲介와 不動産仲介契約 92
• 2. 不動産仲介契約形態의 多樣性 95
• 3. 不動産仲介契約의 當事者 97
• 4. 不動産仲介契約의 仲介活動과 事實行爲 100
• 5. 不動産仲介契約의 成立要件과 成立時期 101
• 6. 仲介報酬請求權과 費用償還請求權의 認定 問題 106
• 7. 不動産仲介契約上 債務履行의 强制性과 手段債務 108
• 8. 有償契約과 善管注意義務 112
• 9. 雙務契約과 同時履行抗辯權 114
• 10. 諾成契約과 不動産仲介契約 117
• 11. 本契約으로서의 不動産仲介契約 118
• 第III章 不動産仲介契約의 契約責任論 119
• 第1節 不動産仲介契約의 雙務性과 契約責任 119
• I. 雙方的 義務와 一方的 義務 119
• II. 不動産仲介契約의 契約責任 120
• 1. 契約責任의 意義 120
• 2. 契約責任의 性質 121
• 3. 契約法에서의 契約責任의 範圍 122
• 4. 契約責任上 保護義務 124
• 5. 契約責任의 債務範圍에 관한 學說 126
• III. 不動産仲介契約의 類型別 契約責任 129
• 1. 一般仲介契約의 契約責任 129
• 2. 專屬仲介契約의 契約責任 130
• 3. 獨占仲介契約의 契約責任 132
• 4. 純價仲介契約의 契約責任 133
• 5. 共同仲介契約의 契約責任 136
• 第2節 不動産仲介人의 契約責任 137
• I. 不動産仲介契約의 債務不履行 137
• 1. 契約上 債務不履行 137
• 1) 債務不履行 137
• 2) 不作爲 義務의 違反 139
• 3) 履行拒絶 140
• 2. 法律上 義務違反에 의한 債務不履行 140
• 1) 槪觀 140
• 2) 주된 給付義務 141
• 3) 附隨的 義務 142
• II. 不動産仲介人의 損害賠償責任 160
• 1. 債務不履行과 損害賠償 160
• 2. 損害賠償의 要件 163
• 1) 歸責事由 163
• 2) 民事責任의 歸屬 168
• 3. 損害賠償의 範圍와 限界 170
• 1) 損害賠償의 範圍 170
• 2) 姓名 또는 商號를 使用한 營業行爲責任 173
• 3) 損害賠償의 過失相計 174
• 4. 不動産仲介補助員을 利用하는 不動産仲介人의 責任 176
• 1) 履行補助者를 지휘하는 不動産仲介人의 責任 176
• 2) 不動産仲介人의 損害賠償의 範圍 180
• 5. 不動産仲介人의 損害賠償責任의 保障制度 180
• III. 不動産仲介人의 瑕疵擔保責任 182
• IV. 不動産仲介人의 專門家責任 與否 183
• 1. 專門家의 意義 183
• 2. 專門家 責任의 問題點 184
• 3. 結語 186
• 第3節 不動産仲介依賴人의 契約責任 187
• I. 不動産仲介依賴人의 債務不履行 187
• 1. 契約上의 債務不履行 187
• 1) 仲介報酬의 支給義務 187
• 2) 實費와 費用償還義務 188
• 2. 法律上의 義務違反에 의한 債務不履行 189
• 1) 秘密維持義務 189
• 2) 賣渡仲介依賴人의 仲介對象物 公開義務 190
• II. 不動産仲介依賴人의 損害賠償 190
• 1. 적절한 시기에 不動産仲介契約의 解止意思를 통보하지 않은 경우 190
• 2. 仲介報酬支給을 면할 목적으로 직거래를 하는 경우의 報酬支給責任 191
• 1) 일방적으로 不動産仲介契約을 解止한 경우 191
• 2) 不動産仲介契約을 解止하지 않은 경우 192
• 3) 仲介報酬의 支給에 관한 學說 192
• 4) 結語 212
• 3. 不動産仲介契約의 成立과 仲介報酬支給義務 215
• 1) 不動産仲介契約의 成立判斷 基準 215
• 2) 不動産仲介契約의 存續 215
• 3) 不動産仲介契約의 解止와 解除 215
• 4. 仲介依賴人의 希望去來契約의 締結과 仲介報酬支給義務 216
• 1) 不動産仲介契約上 仲介依賴人의 依賴事項 216
• 2) 仲介依賴內容과 다른 去來契約締結에 있어서 仲介報酬支給義務 217
• III. 仲介報酬支給義務와 契約責任의 限界 218
• 1. 仲介依賴人의 債務不履行과 不動産仲介人의 解止通報 218
• 2. 仲介報酬支給義務의 消滅 221
• 1) 不動産仲介人의 仲介報酬請求權이 喪失되는 경우 221
• 2) 雙方仲介에 의한 仲介報酬支給義務 222
• 第4節 小結 225
• 第IV章 不動産仲介契約의 立法論 227
• 第1節 典型契約으로서의 不動産仲介契約 227
• I. 立法經過 227
• 1. 仲介契約의 意義 227
• 2. 仲介人의 善管注意義務 등 228
• 3. 仲介料請求權 등 228
• 4. 仲介報酬 約定의 黙示的 合意 229
• 5. 仲介報酬請求權의 減額 및 喪失 230
• 6. 婚姻仲介 新設 231
• 7. 準用規定 231
• II. 民法改正案에 대한 公聽會의 論議事項 232
• 1. 主題發表 232
• 2. 討論意見 233
• III. 民法改正案硏究會의 <民法改正案意見書> 235
• 1. 改正試案 제692조의2 및 제692조의3에 관한 한웅길 교수의 意見 235
• 2. 改正試案 제692조의4에 관한 정종휴 교수의 意見 235
• 第2節 民法改正案에 관한 檢討 236
• I. 改正案 起草者의 立法意思 236
• 1. 序說 236
• 2. 仲介契約에 관한 現行法의 體系 238
• 3. 不動産仲介契約의 立法의 必要性 238
• 4. 不動産仲介契約의 典型契約으로서의 機能 240
• 5. 起草者의 立法意思 242
• II. 獨逸 民法典과 比較 244
• 1. 雙務契約과 有償契約 244
• 2. 仲介契約 條文의 順序 245
• 3. 仲介報酬에 대한 規定 245
• 4. 費用償還請求權의 認定 與否 246
• 5. 民法改正案에서 仲介契約의 獨自性 確保 247
• III. 民法改正案의 각 條文에 대한 批判 248
• 1. 民法改正案 第692條의2의 仲介契約의 意義 248
• 2. 民法改正案 第692條의3의 仲介報酬請求權 249
• 3. 民法改正案 第692條의4의 報酬請求權의 減額 및 喪失 250
• 4. 民法改正案 第652條의5의 準用規定에 관한 問題點 251
• 第3節 仲介契約의 새로운 立法方案 256
• I. 民法改正案의 새로운 摸索 256
• 1. 雙務契約의 明示 256
• 2. 費用償還請求權의 認定 256
• 3. 約定없는 仲介契約에서 有償契約의 當爲性 認定 257
• II. 公認仲介士의 業務 및 不動産去來申告에 관한 法律의 改正方向 257
• 第V章 結 論 260
• I. 要約 260
• 1. 雙務契約으로서의 不動産仲介契約 261
• 2. 立法論 262
• II. 不動産仲介契約의 展望과 課題 265
• 參 考 文 獻 267
• ABSTRACT 279