부동산중개수수료청구권의 쟁점 검토

Controversial dispute on the Claim for Real Estate Brokerage Fees

공인중개사법 제32조 제1항에서는 “중개업자는 중개업무에 관하여 중개의뢰인으로부터 소정의 수수료를 받는다. 다만, 중개업자의 고의 또는 과실로 인하여 중개의뢰인간의 거래행위가 무효ㆍ취소 또는 해제된 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다.“고 규정하고 있다. 그러나 지금까지의 학설과 판례가 공인중개사법 제32조 제1항에 기하여 중개수수수료청구권의 근거와 성립요건에 관한 법리구성을 했는가는 의문이다. 이른바 결과보수(성공보수)주의에 기한 법리구성을 해 오고 있다. 이 논문에서는 이에 관한 의문점에서 출발하여 중개수수료청구권의 성립요건을 중심으로 몇 가지 쟁점에 관한 검토를 하였다. 특히 일본 택건업법상의 중개보수에 관한 규정과의 비교를 통하여, 공인중개사법 제32조 제1항은 이와 달리 행위보수적 관점에서 해석할 수 있는 가능성이 있다는 결론을 제시하였다.

The purpose of this article reviews the theoretical mechanism on the creation of a Claim for Real Estate Brokerage Fees. BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT art. 32 par. 1 provides that the broker receives the fixed commission from the client for brokerage business, except in a case where the transaction between clients is invalidated, withdrawn or canceled by his intention or negligence. It has been held that real estate brokers receive a commission only when a purchase actually takes place. According to this doctrine of a fee contingent on the success, the creation of a claim for real estate brokerage fees is instituted as follows: ① broker who has completed a registration of the establishment of an office to perform a brokerage business, ② brokerage relationship, ③act of real estate brokerage, ④ contract actually takes place, and ⑤ adequate causal connection between above ③ and ④. In my opinion, this doctrine can not be consistent with the interpretation of above the relevant provisions. If the only provision of claim for real estate brokerage fees is applied by BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT art. 32, this fact becomes a very important factor in determining whether doctrine of a fee contingent on the success is improper or not. With very great respect, I am dare to think that the claim for real estate brokerage fees is created rather from the brokerage business than contract actually takes place.