권리금과 중개대상물에 관한 연구 -공인중개사법 개정 논의를 중심으로-

Although the premium was institutionalized through the amendment of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, which stipulates the premium as an object of brokerage, was not amended. There are conflicts between licensed real estate brokers and licensed administrative agents over the scope of their business due to judicial precedents that result from the legislative discrepancy over the premium. To resolve this conflict, a bill to amend the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment Bill”) to consider the premium as an object of brokerage was recently proposed. However, the DAAA is opposing the amendment, claiming that it is unconstitutional and conflicts with the Licensed Administrative Agent Act and the Attorney-At-Law Act. Therefore, this study summarized the issues, including the unconstitutional logic claimed by the DAAA and the Korea Association of Realtors associated with the proposed Amendment Bill, and examined the validity of the arguments. This raises the question of what is desirable from a consumer perspective, including the parties involved in premium transactions. Consequently, this study reviewed whether it would be necessary for the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act to stipulate the premium from a consumer perspective. This study also examined the relevant cases of Japan, often cited as an argument against legislation the premium as an object of brokerage, in detail.