공인중개사법상 중개행위의 의미와 공인중개사의 책임 - 권리금계약을 중심으로 -

The Supreme Court presupposes that the premium contract does not constitute an object of brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. The Supreme Court argued that in the case of damages to a brokerage client in a premium contract, the brokerage client cannot claim liability for damages under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, but can only claim liability under civil law. However, the premium contract is an essential contract in a commercial lease contract, and in the case of a commercial lease contract, the contents of the premium are rarely omitted. Also, it is difficult to say that the matters related to the premium are omitted from the obligation for a real estate agent to check and explain the brokerage. In addition, when it comes to a commercial lease contract, a real estate agent also deals with the premium contract. Considering these points, it is reasonable to consider that the matters related to the premium to be included in the object of brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. If the matters relating to the premium are included in the object of brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, if the real estate agent intentionally or negligently damages the brokerage client, the brokerage client can not only claim the real estate agent to be liable for damages under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. It is also possible to claim a deduction for the Korea Association of Realtors. It is possible to protect brokerage clients more and more in commercial lease contracts and premiun contracts in which substantial disputes arise.