공인중개사법상 중개보수 관련 조항에 대한 헌법적 고찰-헌법재판소 2016. 5. 26. 선고 2015헌마248 결정의 평석-

First of all, real estate agents may not claim real estate brokerage maintenance under any of the enforcement actions delegated by the provision of payment time of brokerage fees under the real estate brokerage act, but may request real estate brokerage maintenance directly according to these provisions. Therefore, the constitutional court’s view is valid that such a provision is equipped the direct requirements of the constitutional court’s appeal. The next, the provision of limit of brokerage fees under the real estate brokerage act is to realize public welfare and the purpose of the legislation is just. And the constitutional court’s view that these provisions do not cause authorized brokers to give up their real estate brokerage business is valid. Moreover, the constitutional court’s view is valid that the provision of the real Estate brokerage act to impose criminal penalties on authorized brokers who received money over the proportion of legal compensation fees to prevent speculative demand for real estate in Korea, unlike other professions such as lawyers and so on, does not result in the loss of their right to equality and the legitimacy or balance of the penal system. Finally, it is easy to predict that the government will set the upper and lower delegation on the amount of real estate transactions based on a given percentage of the relevant real estate transaction amount in the provision of limit of brokerage fees under the real estate brokerage act. In addition, it can be easily predicted that the stipulations of the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry or the municipal and provincial ordinances to respond quickly and appropriately to the rapidly changing real estate market, and the provision of payment time of brokerage fees under the real estate brokerage act delegated to the presidential decree can be specified from the time of establishment of the real estate transaction contract until completion. Therefore, the Constitutional Court’s view is valid that these provisions do not violate the principle of Forbidden General Delegation.