무권한 전자지급거래 시 위험분배 원칙 -전자금융거래법 제9조의 비판적 검토- = Risk Allocation of Unanthorised Electronic Payment

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is concerned with the principle of risk allocation of unauthorised electronic payment which is executed by the payor bank without fault of both parties, namely the payor(originator, bank's customer, user in terms of Korean Electronic Financial Transaction Act, hereinafter KEFTA) and the payor bank(originator's bank, financial institution including financial service provider in terms of KEFTA). The important conclusions that may be drawn from the study are summarized below.
Article 470 of Korean Civil Code(hereinafter KCC) which provides that payment made in good faith to one who was in possession of the claim is valid, although the possessor was not real possessor of the claim, is not applicable to allocate the risk of unauthorised electronic payment to the payor. For applying Article 470 KCC it is conditional that the claim be arisen out of the real possessor and stay valid. Moreover Article 470 KCC like Article 1240 of the French Civil Code as its model is only applicable to solve a problem about the identity of a real creditor. Besides under reasonable interpretation of Article 470 KCC it is additionally required that good faith of the payor bank about the identity of quasi-creditor as that of the real creditor be relied on negligent conducts of the real creditor.
Futhermore it can not be also held that the payor bank is free from the risk of the unauthorised payment due to the Article 688 (3) KCC, according to which the payor bank as mandatary obtains a claim of damages against the mandator which he has suffered in the ordinary course of carrying out the mandate. But this Article is applicable only if the mandate is valid, but irrespective of both remuneration for the service of the mandatary and negligence of the mandator.
Article 9 KEFTA allocates reasonably the risk of unauthorised electronic payment between the payor and his bank to the latter. From a viewpoint of consumer protection as legal policy Article 9 KEFTA is acceptable because a without fault of both parties arisen risk(loss) should be imposed upon a party more able to bear the risk and more easily to insure himself against the risk. This party is the payor bank, who in result should pay business cost in order for providing his financial service in the market. On the other hand Article 9 KEFTA corresponds to the latest international legislative trend and practice which limit the liability of the payor like 50 dollar rule of electronic fund transfer act of the U.S. and 10% rule of the bank general terms and conditions of germany.
But Article 9 KEFTA doesn't comply with the principle of liability on the base of negligence in korean civil law system in point of waiving liability of the payor in the case of his simple negligence with regard to unauthorised electronic payment. It can not also overcome moral hazard of the simply negligent payor, and can not give the payor any incentive to take precaution against unauthorised payment. It is also excessive legislation to prescribe in the executive order for KEFTA enumeratively mode of willful conduct and gross negligence, which are very various and should be object of judicial test, so that it could result in contradicting to Korean Constitution.
Under Article 9 (2) (1) KEFTA Financial institutes are not permitted to contract out their liability in case of unauthorised payment due to simple negligence of the payor as consumer. Financial institutes can not also disclaim their duty to act in good faith and excercise ordinary care and their burden of proof of the payor's wilful misconduct or gross negligence regarding the unauthorised electronic payment. This Article is a mandatory rule for the protection of consumer which financial institutes are not free to vary by agreement.
Lastly, to make KEFTA more completely besides the case of the theft and loss of the means of access the payor should also promptly notify his bank if he learns of their forgery and alteration. Like notice of...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is concerned with the principle of risk allocation of unauthorised electronic payment which is executed by the payor bank without fault of both parties, namely the payor(originator, bank's customer, user in terms of Korean Electronic Financial Transaction Act, hereinafter KEFTA) and the payor bank(originator's bank, financial institution including financial service provider in terms of KEFTA). The important conclusions that may be drawn from the study are summarized below.
Article 470 of Korean Civil Code(hereinafter KCC) which provides that payment made in good faith to one who was in possession of the claim is valid, although the possessor was not real possessor of the claim, is not applicable to allocate the risk of unauthorised electronic payment to the payor. For applying Article 470 KCC it is conditional that the claim be arisen out of the real possessor and stay valid. Moreover Article 470 KCC like Article 1240 of the French Civil Code as its model is only applicable to solve a problem about the identity of a real creditor. Besides under reasonable interpretation of Article 470 KCC it is additionally required that good faith of the payor bank about the identity of quasi-creditor as that of the real creditor be relied on negligent conducts of the real creditor.
Futhermore it can not be also held that the payor bank is free from the risk of the unauthorised payment due to the Article 688 (3) KCC, according to which the payor bank as mandatary obtains a claim of damages against the mandator which he has suffered in the ordinary course of carrying out the mandate. But this Article is applicable only if the mandate is valid, but irrespective of both remuneration for the service of the mandatary and negligence of the mandator.
Article 9 KEFTA allocates reasonably the risk of unauthorised electronic payment between the payor and his bank to the latter. From a viewpoint of consumer protection as legal policy Article 9 KEFTA is acceptable because a without fault of both parties arisen risk(loss) should be imposed upon a party more able to bear the risk and more easily to insure himself against the risk. This party is the payor bank, who in result should pay business cost in order for providing his financial service in the market. On the other hand Article 9 KEFTA corresponds to the latest international legislative trend and practice which limit the liability of the payor like 50 dollar rule of electronic fund transfer act of the U.S. and 10% rule of the bank general terms and conditions of germany.
But Article 9 KEFTA doesn't comply with the principle of liability on the base of negligence in korean civil law system in point of waiving liability of the payor in the case of his simple negligence with regard to unauthorised electronic payment. It can not also overcome moral hazard of the simply negligent payor, and can not give the payor any incentive to take precaution against unauthorised payment. It is also excessive legislation to prescribe in the executive order for KEFTA enumeratively mode of willful conduct and gross negligence, which are very various and should be object of judicial test, so that it could result in contradicting to Korean Constitution.
Under Article 9 (2) (1) KEFTA Financial institutes are not permitted to contract out their liability in case of unauthorised payment due to simple negligence of the payor as consumer. Financial institutes can not also disclaim their duty to act in good faith and excercise ordinary care and their burden of proof of the payor's wilful misconduct or gross negligence regarding the unauthorised electronic payment. This Article is a mandatory rule for the protection of consumer which financial institutes are not free to vary by agreement.
Lastly, to make KEFTA more completely besides the case of the theft and loss of the means of access the payor should also promptly notify his bank if he learns of their forgery and alteration. Like not...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 명순구, "프랑스민법전" 법문사 2004

2 김형배, "채권총론(민법요점강의 III)" 박영사 1997

3 이은영, "채권총론" 박영사 2006

4 김형배, "채권의 준점유자에 대한 변제" 고려대학교 법학연구원 26 : 1991

5 정진세, "전자자금이체(EFT)에 있어서 책임부담?컴퓨터법에 있어서의 법적 책임에 관한 연구 중에서 EFT 부문" 14 (14): 1995

6 정경영, "전자금융거래와 법" 박영사 2007

7 이준상, "은행원의 어음 수표법" 육법사 1993

8 정찬형, "어음수표법강의" 박영사 2004

9 정동윤, "어음 수표법" 박영사

10 최기원, "어음 수표법" 박영사 2001

11 이은영, "약관규제법" 박영사 1994

12 정동윤, "신용카드의 도난과 분실" 한국상사법학회 6 : 1988

13 손주찬, "상법(하)" 박영사 2005

14 김형배, "민법학강의" 박영사 2006

15 정경영, "무권한 전자금융거래에서 금융기관의 책임" 한국금융법학회 3 (3): 2006

16 양창수, "독일민법학논문선" 박영사 2005

17 內田貴, "民法 III" 東京大?出版? 2004

18 我妻?, "新訂債??論" 岩波書店 1964

19 정찬형, "僞造·變造된 어음·手票를 支給한 支給人의 責任" 4 : 1984

20 林良平=石田喜久夫=高木多喜男, "債??論" ?林書院 1996

21 淡路剛久, "債??論" 有斐閣 2002

22 澤井裕, "テキストブック 債??論, 有斐閣, 1980.?"

23 재정경제부 금융정책국, "「전자금융거래법안 참고자료(2005. 11)」"

24 나승성, "“전자금융거래법안의 법리 연구“,「지급결제와 정보기술」(2003. 12)"

25 정진세, "“은행의 위조어음?수표지급에 관한 책임분담(하)”, 판례월보, 제292호(1995.1), 판례월보사"

26 정진세, "“은행의 위조어음?수표지급에 관한 책임분담(상), 판례월보, 제291호(1994.12), 판례월보사"

27 Baxter Jr., "“The Interrelationship of Article 4A with other Law”, 45 Bus. Law. 1485(1990)"

28 Vasseur, Michel, "“Recht und Praxis der Auslandsuberweisung in Frankreich“, in: Hadding/Schneider(Hrsg.), Rechtsprobleme im Auslandsuberweisung Berlin 1992"

29 Taupitz, Jochen, "“Kreditkartenmißbrauch: Thesen zur zulassigen Verteilung des Hatungsrisikos in AGB“, NJW 1996"

30 Pichler, Rufus, "“Krditkartenzahlung im Internet: Die bisherige Verteilung des Mißbrauchsrisikos und der Einfluß der Verwendung von SET”, NJW 1998"

31 Koller, Ingo, "“Die Verteilung des Scheckfalschungsrisiks zwischen Kunde und Bank”, NJW 1981"

32 Rosenberg, Leo, "Zivilprozessrecht, 16. Aufl., M?chen 2004"

33 Baumbach,Adolf, "Zivilprozessordnung, 65. Aufl. M?chen 2007"

34 Z?ler, Richard, "Zivilprozessordnung, 25. Aufl. K?n 2005"

35 Neumann, Dania, "Zahlungsverkehr im Internet: rechtliche Grundz?e klassischer und innovativer Zahlungsverfahren, M?chen 2004"

36 Langenbucher, Katja, "Zahlungs- verkehr: Handbuch zum Recht der ?erweisung, Lastschrift, Kreditkarte und der elektronischen Zahlungsformen, M?chen 2004"

37 "Wolf/Horn/Lindacher(Hrsg.), AGB-Gesetz, Kommentar, 4. Aufl. M?chen 1999"

38 Z?lner, Wolfgang, "Wertpapierrecht, 14. Aufl., M?chen 1987"

39 "Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen(Hrsg.), AGB-Recht, 10. Aufl., K?n 2006"

40 Zimmermann, Reinhard, "The Law of Obligations : Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, Cape Town et al. 1990"

41 Crabb, John H., "The French Civil Code, Revised Edition, Colorado 1995"

42 "Schwintowski/Sch?er, Bankrecht, K?n u.a.,1997"

43 Schmidt, Christian, "Risikostrukturen des ?erweisungsverkehrs im franz?ischen Recht: Zugleich ein Ausblick auf das neue deutsche ?erweisungsrecht, Berlin 2001"

44 "Restatement(2d.) of Tort(1977)"

45 Mann, Ronald J., "Payment Systems And Other Financial Transactions: Cases, Materials, and Problems, 3d. ed. Aspen, 2007"

46 K. Schmidt, "M?chener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, Bd. 5, M?chen 2001"

47 "M?chener Kommentar zum B?gerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 4(㎣ 611-704), 4. Aufl, M?chen 2005"

48 Cooter, Robert, "Law and Economics, 3rd ed., Massach- usetts et al. 2000"

49 Staudinger, J. von, "Kommentar zum B?gerlichen Gesetzbuch, Buch 2, Recht der Schuldverh?tnidde ㎣657-704(Gesch?tsbesogung) Neubearbeitung, Berlin 2006"

50 Bamberger, Heinz Georg, "Kommentar zum B?ger- lichen Gesetzbuch, Bd. 2 M?chen 2003.?"

51 "K?pel, Siegfried, Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 2. Aufl. K?n 2000.?"

52 Schlegelberger, "Handelsgesetzbuch, Kommentar Band IV 5. Aufl"

53 Ferid, Murad, "Hand J Das Franz?ische Zivilrecht, Band 2, Schuldrecht: Die einzelnen Schuld- verh?tnisse, Sachenrecht, 2. Aufl. Frankfurt a.M., 1986"

54 "Erman, B?gerliches Gesetzbuch, Handkommentar, 10. Aufl. K?n 2000"

55 Ulmer, Eugen, "Das Recht der Wertpapier, Stuttgart 1938"

56 Dittrich, Robert, "Das Allgemeine B?gerliche Gesetz- buch, 22. Aufl., Wien 2007"

57 Watson, Alan, "Contract Of Mandate In Roman Law, Oxford 1961"

58 Honsel, Heinrich, "Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, Art.1-529 OR, 4. Aufl"

59 Palandt, "B?gerliche Gesetzbuch, 66. Aufl. M?chen 2007"

60 Jackson, Howell E, "Analytical Methods For Lawyers, New York 2003"

61 Rogers, James Steven, ""The Basic Principle of Loss Allocation For Unauthorized Checks", 39 Wake Forest L. Rev. 453, 455-467 (2004)"

62 Sch?, Wolfgang, ""Prinzipien des bargeldlosen Zahlungsverkehrs", AcP 198(1998)"

63 Iwahara, Shinsaku, ""Die praktische Durchf?rung und der rechtliche Rahmen des internationalen Zahlungsverkehrs in Japan", in: Hadding, Walther/Schneider, Uwe H. (Hrsg.), Rechtsprobleme im Auslands?erweisung, Berlin 1992"

64 Turner, Paul S., ""Contracting Out of the UCC: Variation by Agreement under Articles3, 4 and 4A", 40 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 443(2006)"

65 Overby, A. Brooke, ""Check Fraud in the Courts after the Revisions to U.C.C. Articles 3 AND 4", 57 Ala. L. Rev. 351(2005)"

66 Wines, Lisa, ""Check Clearing for the 21st Century: Substitute Checks not Sufficient in Disputes Alleging Fraud", 13 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. l. Rep. 95(2006)"

67 French, J. Kevin, ""Article 4A's Treatment of Fraudulent Payment Orders-The Customer's Perspective", 42 Ala. L. Rev. 773 (1991)"