本文選題：居間商　切入點：損害賠償　出處：《西南政法大學》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著二手房買賣程序越來越復雜化、專業(yè)化、網(wǎng)絡化，推動著房屋中介市場的不斷壯大。越來越多的房屋買賣通過中介公司來完成。但是由于現(xiàn)行法律對中介公司的規(guī)范十分缺少，以及相關(guān)的關(guān)于居間的法律規(guī)定也十分籠統(tǒng)。關(guān)于居間合同的規(guī)定也就只有《合同法》中的四條。也即是《合同法》從第四百二十四條到第四百二十七條這四條。所以關(guān)于對房地產(chǎn)中介市場的規(guī)制就十分的不健全，但是在房屋買賣中特別是二手房買賣中又離不開中介公司的介入。特別像北京這樣的一線城市，中介公司介入二手房買賣已經(jīng)達到了80%。這樣的一個市場導致很多人痛恨中介公司是“黑公司”，所以很多時候在法院的訴訟中，法官也會有這樣的感情傾向，這樣難免會導致判案時過多的加入法官的個人感情因素，而不能達到法律的公平和公正。由于關(guān)于居間商民事責任規(guī)定的缺乏，導致在司法審判中，出現(xiàn)很多無法可依，甚至法官造法的現(xiàn)象發(fā)生。 筆者在這里通過分析一個典型的司法個案的方式，對我國現(xiàn)存的由于法律規(guī)定的缺少所導致的司法不公現(xiàn)象進行研究和思考。以期能夠?qū)ξ覈P(guān)于居間商民事責任的分配方面在立法和司法審判中提供有益的參考。 第一部分主要是對司法個案的引入，主要介紹司法審判中，對居間商民事責任的認定與評判。在司法審判中，法官根據(jù)過錯責任的大小來認定責任的承擔。第二部分是對案例爭議焦點的總結(jié)。第三部分為本篇文章的重要部分，首先是從合同相對性原則方面對司法個案進行評判，得出在居間房屋買賣合同無效后締約過失責任的承擔，只能在締約人之間承擔。而不能擴大到買賣合同之外的居間商。其次是從居間商的如實報告義務對司法個案進行分析，得出從立法的現(xiàn)行規(guī)定，以及居間法律制度的不完善，對居間商如實報告義務和調(diào)查義務的全面要求過于苛刻。其三是從出賣人的權(quán)利瑕疵擔保義務對居間商的民事責任的影響方面進行分析。出賣人是標的物權(quán)利瑕疵擔保義務的主要承擔者，，而居間商只能是根據(jù)出賣人所提交的材料進行審查和提示義務，如果出賣人有故意隱瞞的傾向，作為居間商是很難得知的。其四是從居間商關(guān)于權(quán)利瑕疵擔保義務的免責條款上進行分析，根據(jù)意思自治原則，居間商在合同中有免責條款的，在司法判案中，應該遵守當事人的約定，體現(xiàn)私法的自治性。第四部分，通過分析個案，提出對我國居間商民事責任的相關(guān)思考及完善建議。立法建議主要是要建立完善的信息告知制度和居間商有條件的調(diào)查義務。
[Abstract]:As the procedures for buying and selling second-hand houses become more and more complicated, specialized and networked, The housing intermediary market is growing rapidly. More and more houses are bought and sold through intermediary companies. However, due to the lack of regulations on intermediary companies in the current law, And the relevant legal provisions on intermediation are very general. The provisions on intermediation contract are only four articles in the contract law. That is, the four articles of the contract law from article 424 to article 427. So the regulation of the real estate intermediary market is very imperfect, However, in housing sales, especially in second-hand housing transactions, the intervention of intermediary companies is indispensable. Especially in first-tier cities such as Beijing, The involvement of intermediary companies in the sale of second-hand houses has reached 80%. This kind of market has led many people to hate the fact that intermediary companies are "black companies," so many times in court proceedings, judges will also have such an emotional tendency. This will inevitably lead to too many personal emotional factors of joining the judges in the adjudication of the case, without achieving the fairness and fairness of the law. Because of the lack of provisions on the civil liability of intermediaries, there will be a lot of problems in the judicial trial. Even the phenomenon of judges making laws occurs. By analyzing a typical judicial case here, This paper studies and ponders the phenomenon of judicial injustice caused by the lack of legal provisions in our country in order to provide a useful reference for the distribution of civil liability of intermediaries in our country in legislation and judicial trial. The first part is the introduction of judicial cases, mainly introduces the identification and evaluation of the civil liability of intermediaries in judicial trials. The second part is the summary of the focus of the case dispute. The third part is the important part of this article, the first part is to judge the judicial cases from the principle of relativity of contract. It comes to the conclusion that the liability for contracting negligence can only be borne between the contracting parties after the contract of sale and purchase of intermediate houses is invalid, and it cannot be extended to the intermediary outside the contract of sale. Secondly, the judicial case is analyzed from the truthful reporting obligation of the intermediary. From the current provisions of the legislation, as well as from the imperfections of the intermediary legal system, The overall requirement on the truthful reporting obligation and investigation obligation of the intermediary is too harsh. Thirdly, it analyzes the impact of the seller's rights and defects on the civil liability of the broker. The seller is the subject matter right. The principal bearer of the obligation of surety, The intermediary can only review and suggest the materials submitted by the seller, and if the seller has a tendency to deliberately conceal, As an intermediary, it is difficult to know. Fourth, it is analyzed from the exemption clause of the intermediary on the obligation to guarantee the defect of the right. According to the principle of autonomy of will, if the intermediary has an exemption clause in the contract, it will be in the judicial judgment. Should abide by the agreement of the parties, reflect the autonomy of private law. Part IV, through the analysis of individual cases, This paper puts forward some thoughts and suggestions on the civil liability of intermediary merchants in China. The legislative suggestion is mainly to establish a perfect information informing system and a conditional investigation obligation of intermediary merchants.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 張濤;;由居間合同與委托合同的區(qū)別引發(fā)的法律思考[J];才智;2012年02期

2 劉長濱,都昌滿;中美房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀業(yè)發(fā)展及管理制度比較[J];城市開發(fā);2002年01期

3 稅兵;;居間合同中的雙邊道德風險——以“跳單”現(xiàn)象為例[J];法學;2011年11期

4 黃英 ,劉洪玉;中國房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀服務業(yè)的現(xiàn)狀與發(fā)展[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2004年09期

5 游本強;芻論居間[J];貴州財經(jīng)學院學報;1998年05期

6 吳坤埔;;論私法中權(quán)利瑕疵擔保責任的發(fā)展[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2010年04期

7 牛怡霖;;論買賣合同中的瑕疵擔保責任[J];時代經(jīng)貿(mào)(中旬刊);2007年S2期

8 廖俊平,徐斌;限制房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀收費價格的必要性[J];中外房地產(chǎn)導報;2003年17期

本文編號：1679456