The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 19(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638, Jul. 29, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that "When a broker intentionally or negligently causes damage to the property of a transaction party in the course of acting as a broker, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such damage." Article 19(3) of the same Act provides that "a broker shall, in order to guarantee liability for damages under paragraph (1), enter into a guarantee insurance or mutual aid under Article 35-2 or deposit under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

Since the legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is the same as a delegation relationship under the Civil Act, a broker has a duty to handle brokerage services requested with the care of a good manager depending on whether a request for brokerage is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da55350, May 11, 1993). The Defendant’s mutual aid system based on Article 35-2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act has a guarantee insurance system that guarantees a broker’s liability for damages incurred to a transaction party due to his/her tort or nonperformance of obligation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da47261, Sept. 29, 195). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act regarding the concept of “mediation” provides that “a broker means the mediation of sale, exchange, lease, and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the objects of brokerage as provided in Article 3.” However, Articles 6(1) and 9(1) do not provide a separate provision regarding the concept and scope of “mediation” which are scattered in various provisions, such as Articles 6(1) and 9(1).