개업공인중개사의 성실의무에 대한 고찰-독일과 일본의 학설 및 판례이론을 중심으로-

This paper is concerned with the case where a practitioner of real estate brokerage is engaged in brokerage business by receiving a brokerage request from one of the brokering parties such as real estate brokerage, or when the brokerage brokerage house performs brokerage business by receiving brokerage request from both brokers such as real estate brokerage, The problem of the sincere duties and obligations of the practicing engineer who could interfere with the brokerage business between real estate brokers such as real estate brokers was examined through the cases and theories of Germany and Japan. When a practitioner opens a real estate brokerage business by receiving a brokerage commission from one of the brokering parties such as real estate brokerage, etc., the brokerage firm is not responsible for the profit of the counterparty such as real estate transaction, It is a matter of how to deal with the legal case in case of intermediary work. In this case, the German and Japanese cases do not recognize the brokerage fees of the practitioners as a breach of the real estate brokerage contract. In addition, if the practicing agent is engaged in brokerage business by receiving brokerage commission from both sides of the transaction such as the sale of real estate, if the problem of whether the bilateral brokerage is legal is reasonable and the bilateral brokerage is permitted, It is a matter of whether the work should be carried out. In the case of Germany, Article 654 of the BGB stipulates that brokerage fees may be lost in the case of brokerage services conducted by both parties, such as the sale of real estate, And does not prohibit the commissioning of intermediary services upon request. Therefore, the German case requires strict neutrality when a practicing business owner engages in brokerage services by receiving brokerage requests from both parties, such as real estate transactions. On the other hand, if a practicing business agent engages in brokerage business for the benefit of one party of the transaction such as real estate sale, and for his own benefit, it is considered to be a breach of the duty of sincerity. In this respect, the Japanese case interprets the same purpose, and does not admit the request for brokerage reimbursement by the practitioner. In the future, in Korea, whether it is a bilateral brokerage request or a one - sided brokerage request, I think that the brokerage service of the practicing brokerage house should be reexamined judiciously from the viewpoint of the sincerity duty of the practitioner.