소비자중재에서 소비자보호의 문제

정선주 ( Sun Ju Jeong ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 서울대학교 法學 Vol.49 No.1

These days, arbitration actively is used in many areas as the most effective dispute settlement scheme alternating trial of the court. In Korea, consumer arbitration has not yet revitalized, but due to many merits arbitration system has such as promptness of dispute settlement, flexibility of procedure, tendency to use arbitration as alternative dispute resolution in consumer dispute will gain strength in the future. In the face of revitalization movement of consumer arbitration, it is required to examine consumer protection in consumer arbitration. The protection considering specific circumstance of consumer who is not used to business relations is required in consumer arbitration. However, it is unnecessary to exclude the protection from arbitration subject of consumer dispute or do the protection through limitations on the time or method of arbitration agreement, since these will obstruct revitalization of consumer arbitration. Consumer protection in consumer arbitration has to be done through imposition of duty to offer accurate information to consumer. Also, it is desirable for consumer protection to be achieved in preventive level, and post-governance arbitration like application for setting aside award to court due to conflict with the ordre public should be avoided.

국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자중재에서의 소비자보호-중재가능성 및 중재합의의 유효성을 중심으로-

김효정 국제거래법학회 2018 國際去來法硏究 Vol.27 No.2

최근 사업자와 소비자 사이의 국제전자상거래가 비약적으로 증가하였고, 그에 따라 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자계약상 분쟁도 급증하였다. 사업자가 웹사이트에 게시한 약관에는 사업자에게 유리하게 작성된 중재조항이 포함되어 있는 경우가 많음에도 불구하고, 소비자는 중재조항의 존재 및 그 법적인 의미를 알지 못하는 상태에서 사업자가 제시한 약관에 동의한다고 표시함으로써 사전중재합의를 하는 경우가 대부분이다. 따라서 위와 같은사전중재합의가 있는 경우에 사회⋅경제적 약자인 소비자를 어떻게 보호할 것인지가 중요한 문제가 된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리 중재법에서는 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자계약을 규율하는 명시적인 규정을 두지 않고 있음으로써 혼란을 가중시키고 있다. 본 논문에서는 국내에 상거소를 둔 소비자(이하 ‘국내소비자’라고 한다)가 해외에 주된영업소 또는 사무소를 둔 사업자(이하 ‘해외사업자’라고 한다)의 웹사이트를 통하여 물품을구입하는 경우에 국내소비자와 해외사업자 사이에 이루어진 약관에 의한 사전중재합의의중재가능성 및 유효성의 문제를 살펴보았다. 먼저 중재가능성의 준거법이 한국법인 경우, 중재법의 적용 범위 및 중재법 제3조 제1항의 규정에 비추어보면 소비자계약상 분쟁이라도중재가능성이 있다고 판단된다. 다음으로 중재합의의 유효성을 살펴봄에 있어서는 약관규제법의 적용 및 국제사법 제27조의 유추적용을 통하여 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자계약상 중재합의를 규제함으로써 소비자를 보호할 수 있는 방안을 모색하였다. 생각건대 중재합의가 사전적으로 이루어졌거나 중재지가 외국이라는 이유만으로는 약관규제법 제14조의적용 및 국제사법 제27조의 유추적용에 의하여 위와 같은 중재조항을 일률적으로 무효라고보기는 어려우며, 개별 사건별로 법문언에 충실한 해석을 통하여 그 유효성을 판단하여야할 것이다. 한편 사업자가 중재조항에 의하여 법원에 소를 제기할 권리를 포기하게 된다는점을 웹사이트에 게시된 약관에 명시하지 않은 경우는 주된 계약의 준거법이 한국법인 경우 약관규제법 제3조의 적용에 의하여 중재조항을 계약의 내용으로 주장할 수 없도록 할수 있고, 집단소송을 포기하는 중재조항의 경우에는 중재합의의 유효성의 준거법이 한국법인 경우에 약관규제법 제14조의 적용에 의하여 그 중재조항을 무효로 할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자중재를 규율하는 구체적인 입법이 없는 상태에서현행법의 해석론에 의하여 소비자를 보호하는 것에는 한계가 있을 수밖에 없으므로 장차입법론적인 해결을 도모하여야 할 것이다. 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자중재를 규율함에있어서는 소비자보호의 측면과 함께 사업자의 이익과 소비자중재의 활성화라는 측면을 균형 있게 고려하여야 하며, 거래의 국제적 성격과 전자상거래의 특성도 염두에 두어야 한다. 사견으로는 장래 입법에 있어서는 국제전자상거래에 의한 소비자중재의 중재가능성을 긍정하고, 사전중재합의도 허용하는 것으로 하되, 사업자에게 중재조항의 법적 의미에 관한 정보제공의무를 부과하고 집단소송을 포기하는 중재조항은 금지하는 것이 바람직할 것으로본다. 나아가 일본 중재법과 같이 소비자에게 해제권을 부여하는 방안을 도입하는 것도 고려할 필요가 있을 것이다. 국제전자상거래에 ... In recent years, the international e-commerce contracts between the businesses and the consumers have increased remarkably, and accordingly the disputes arising from the business-to-consumer(hereinafter “B2C”) contracts in international e-commerce context have increased rapidly. A number of standard terms which businesses have posted on their websites incorporate the arbitration clauses, however in many cases consumers would likely agree to the standard terms without the knowledge of the existence and the legal implication of the arbitration clause. Therefore in such a situation of the aforementioned pre-dispute arbitration agreement, how to protect the consumers who are put in the weak position in terms of the social and economic aspects emerges as an important issue. Nevertheless the Arbitration Act of Korea does not contain any specific rules regulating the B2C contracts in the international e-commerce context, consequently leading to some confusions and chaos. This paper deals with the arbitrability and validity of the pre-dispute arbitration agreements by the standard terms between the consumers whose habitual residences are in Korea(hereinafter “Korean consumers”) and the businesses whose principal business places or offices are in Korea(hereinafter “foreign businesses”) in cases where the Korean consumers purchase the goods through the foreign businesses’ websites. Firstly provided that the governing law of arbitrability is the Korean law, even the disputes arising from the B2C contracts would be judged to be arbitrable in light of the applicable scope of the Arbitration Act and especially the stipulation of Article 3(1) of Arbitration Act. In regard to the validity of the arbitration agreement, this paper has sought for the effective and efficient measures to protect the consumers by regulating the arbitration agreements in the B2C contracts in the international e-commerce, through the application of Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions(hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”) as well as the mutatis mutandis application of Act on Private International Law of Korea(hereinafter “KPILA”). This paper has diagnosed the arbitration agreement would hardly be judged null and void categorically by applying Terms and Conditions Act and applying mutatis mutandis KPILA only because the arbitration agreement was made prior to the disputes and the place of the arbitration is in the foreign country. In this vein this paper suggests that the validity of the arbitration agreement shall be judged by the faithful interpretation of the texts of the relevant Acts on a case-by-case basis. In cases where the arbitration clause is not clearly stated in the standard terms published in the website to the effect that it has the consumers waive the right to file a lawsuit with a court, the foreign business shall be barred from asserting such a arbitration clause as a part of the contract, by applying Article 3 of Terms and Conditions Act provided that the governing law of the principal contract is the Korean law. Furthermore in cases where the arbitration clauses to the effect that it has the consumers waive the right to file a class action shall be made null and void as a provision unreasonably disadvantageous to the consumers, by applying Article 14 of Terms and Conditions Act provided that the governing law on the validity of the arbitration agreement is the Korean law. However in the absence of the specific applicable Acts on regulating the consumer arbitrations in the international e-commerce, there’s no denying the limitations would have to exist in protecting the consumers by way of the de lege lata of the current laws, thus de lege ferenda resolutions shall be ultimately sought afterwards. In approaching the exploration of the avenues to regulate the consumer arbitration in the international e-commerce, it is well advised to take both the activation of the consumer arbitration and the interests of ...

Arbitration Clause Prohibiting Class Action in Consumer Contracts

Sun Yi 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children’s safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers’ rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers’ rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

소비자중재조항과 집단중재(Class Arbitration)에 관한 미국법원의 판결동향

한나희,하충룡,강예림 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.2

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration’s restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act. 소비자의 활동영역이 증대되고, 그에 따른 소비자분쟁이 빈번하게 발생하고 있다. 국제 소비거래의 경우 소비자분쟁을 상이한 국가의 법을 적용하여 소송으로 해결하기란 쉽지 않은 일이며, 소비자중재제도를 이용함으로써 분쟁을 해결하는 것이 소비자를 보호하는 대책이 될 수 있을 것이다. 미국에서는 집단소송과 중재의 혼합형 분쟁해결제도로서 집단중재제도가 운용되고 있다. 따라서 미국은 소비자중재제도가 활성화되어있어 관련사례를 살펴보는 것이 우리에게 교훈이 될 수 있다. 미국 연방대법원의 최근 판결인 Directv v. Imburgia사건을 살펴보고, 사실관계, 쟁점, 그리고 팽팽한 의견 대립이 있었던 다수의견, 반대의견을 정리해본 후 이에 관한 면밀한 분석을 해보았다. 이 판결을 통한 분석은 첫째, 소비자 보호의 위축 둘째, FAA범위의 확대 셋째, 집단중재 제한 넷째, 공정중재법안 제출 네 가지로 요약되었으며, 이를 통해 시사점 및 결론을 도출하였다.

국제 전자상거래 변화에 따른 중재활용방안

김은빈,하충룡 한국중재학회 2023 중재연구 Vol.33 No.4

본 연구에서는 기존의 전자상거래 시장에서 소비자 주도의 전자상거래 시장으로 변화하면서 소비자가 상거래의 주체로 중요해지고 있음을 인지하고 국제 전자상거래의 분쟁에서 소비자 피해구제 방안으로 소비자 중재의 활용을 제시한다. 한국의 경우 소비자 중재에 관한 별도의 규정을 두고 있지 않으므로 소비자 중재가 가장 활발한 미국 중재판정을 분석하여 한국에서도 소비자 분쟁에 있어 구제 수단으로 중재가 활발해질 수 있도록 미국의 중재 판정을 통해 살펴보고자 한다. 사례를 종합하여 보면 전자상거래를 통해 소비자와 기업 간의 분쟁이 발생하는 경우 강제성을 띠지 않고 반복적인 의견수렴을 통해 소비자의 중재 선호 여부를 확인하였다. 미국의 소비자 중재 사례를 통해 급증하는 전자상거래의 분쟁해결 방안으로 한국에서도 소송이 아닌 중재를 통해 소비자를 보호하면서도 적극적인 대안적인 분쟁해결방안을 통해 분쟁을 해결 할 수 있도록 중재의 활성화가 필요하다. 중재의 활성화에 대한 주제는 이전부터 많이 언급되어 왔지만, 여전히 소송에 비해 중재의 선호도는 낮다. 하지만 이제부터는 기존 상거래의 모습에서 소비자 주도의 전자상거래로 변화하면서 매수인으로서의 소비자가 시장에서 존재가 커지면서 중재를 활용하여 소비자를 피해로부터 구제할 수 있도록 방안을 제시하였다. This study recognizes that consumers are becoming important as a subject of commerce as they change from the existing e-commerce market to the consumer-led e-commerce market, and proposes the use of consumer intervention as a remedy for consumer damage in international e-commerce disputes. In Korea, there is no separate regulation on consumer arbitration, so we will analyze the U.S. arbitration judgment, which is the most active in consumer arbitration, and examine it through the U.S. arbitration judgment so that arbitration can become active as a remedy for consumer disputes in Korea. In summary, in the event of a dispute between consumers and companies through e-commerce, consumers' preference for arbitration was confirmed through repeated collection of opinions without coercion. It is necessary to revitalize arbitration in Korea to protect consumers through arbitration rather than litigation and to resolve disputes through active alternative dispute resolution as a solution to disputes in e-commerce, which is rapidly increasing through U.S. consumer arbitration cases. The topic of the activation of arbitration has been mentioned a lot before, but the preference for arbitration is still lower than that of litigation. However, from now on, as the appearance of existing commerce has changed to consumer-led e-commerce, it has proposed a plan to use arbitration to rescue consumers from damage as consumers as buyers grow in the market.

Arbitration Clause Prohibiting Class Action in Consumer Contracts

이선 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children’s safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers’ rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers’ rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

소비자중재합의의 효력에 관한 미국 법원의 태도와 함의

강용찬,박원형 한국중재학회 2011 중재연구 Vol.21 No.1

Today's arbitrations see themselves as the most effective scheme for dispute resolution in a variety of transactional context. While some kind of ADR system was already introduced in Korea as of 2007 with revision of the Consumer Basic Law, consumers' needs in dispute resolution remain unmet. Recently one consumer arbitration case divides the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the result of the case is expected to affect tens of millions of arbitration agreements in the States which has the most developed scheme in consumer arbitrations. While Arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically held to be substantively unconscionable, Class action waivers are one of the most controversial issues in consumer arbitration. In this study, with the theoretical background of consumer arbitrations general, contractual defenses against adhesive contracts, reviewed are U.S. federal courts' attitudes toward certain consumer arbitration agreement including the class arbitration waiver. Moreover, several issues in AT&T case are examined for practical implications for consumer dispute resolution. All of these are expected to initiate further research to find some guidelines for the proper status and operation of consumer arbitration here in Korea.

Arbitration Clause Prohibiting Class Action in Consumer Contracts

Yi, Sun The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children's safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers' rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers' rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

해외직접구매에서 발생하는 분쟁과 소비자의 보호: 국제사법, 중재법과 약관규제법을 중심으로

석광현 ( Suk Kwang Hyun ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2016 서울대학교 法學 Vol.57 No.3

근자에 한국 소비자들이 인터넷을 이용하여 아마존이나 알리바바와 같은 해외 사업자로부터 직접 물품을 구매하는 해외 직접구매(“해외직구”)가 꾸준히 증가하고 있다. 해외직구계약은 외국법이 규율하는 경우가 많고, 해외직구로부터 발생하는 분쟁을 외국에서 소송에 의하여 또는 중재에 의하여 해결하기로 정하는 경우가 빈번하다. 따라서 해외직구에서 소비자의 보호는 이론적으로나 실무적으로 매우 중요하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 종래 우리나라에서는 이런 논점에 대한 논의가 부족하다. 여기에서는 해외직접구매에서 발생하는 소비자보호의 문제를 다룬다. 첫째, 소송의 경우, 한국의 국제사법 하에서 국제재판관할과 준거법의 맥락에서 소비자 보호를 다루고, 둘째, 중재의 경우, 한국의 약관의 규제에 관한 법률(“약관규제법”)과 중재법 하에서 소비자의 보호를 논의한다. 결론을 요약하면 2001년 7월 시행된 국제사법은 준거법과 국제재판관할에 관하여 소비자를 보호하기 위한 특칙을 도입하였으므로 해외직구에서도 소송에서는 소비자보호를 위한 법적 기초를 구비하고 있다. 반면에, 중재의 경우에는 그런 법제를 구비하지 못한 탓에 소비자의 보호를 약관규제법에 맡기고 있는 실정인데 여기에는 커다란 법적 불확실성이 존재하므로 이를 개선할 필요가 있다. 2016년 중재법의 개정과정에서도 이런 개선이 이루어지지 못하였음은 아쉽다. 구체적으로 여기에서는 다음 순서로 논의한다. 해외직접구매의 유형과 계약관계(II.), 해외직접구매에서 국제사법상 보호되는 소비자의 개념(III.), 해외직접 구매계약에서 국제재판관할과 소비자보호(IV.), 해외직접구매계약에서 준거법의 결정과 소비자보호: 소송의 경우(V.), 해외직접구매계약에서 중재합의와 소비자보호(VI.)의 순으로 논의하고, 맺음말에서 해외직구의 유형별로 소비자보호에 관한 논의를 정리한다(VII.). 필자가 다루는 것은 해외직구와 관련한 사법적(私法的) 측면에 한정된다. 중재법을 개정함에 있어서는 소비자계약에서 사전중재합의를 전면 불허하기보다는, 적정 수준의 소비자보호를 제공함과 동시에 중재제도가 가지는 장점을 살릴 수 있는 합리적인 소비자중재제도를 만들어 가야 한다. 이를 위해서는 더욱 체계적이고 깊이 있는 연구가 필요하다. 그 과정에서 유념할 것은 소비자의 개념과 범위이다. 즉 국제사법상 보호의 대상인 수동적 소비자의 개념은 점차 확대되고 있는데, 장차 중재법과 약관규제법에서는 소비자의 개념과 범위를 어떻게 설정할 것인지를 고민해야 한다. 나아가 해외직구로부터 발생하는 분쟁을 소송이나 중재만으로 해결해야 하는 것은 아니므로, 한국 소비자들의 집단 또는 단체 또는 한국의 소비자보호기구를 통하거나 나아가 관련국의 소비자보호기구 간의 공조를 통한 분쟁해결방안도 도입하거나 개선해 나가야 한다. Recently, the number of Korean consumers, who are engaged in overseas direct purchases by internet (“Internet Purchase”) from foreign businesses such as Amazon or Alibaba, is constantly increasing. Such internet purchase contracts are normally governed by foreign law, and the disputes arising from the Internet Purchases are often settled in a foreign country by litigation or arbitration. Therefore, the protection of consumers in the Internet Purchases is very important theoretically as well as practically. However, there have not been enough discussions about these issues in Korea. In this article, the author deals with the protection of consumers in the Internet Purchases. First, the author deals with the protection of consumers in litigation, in the context of applicable law and international jurisdiction under the Private International Law Act of Korea (“KPILA”). Second, the author deals with the protection of consumers in arbitration under the Standard Contract Conditions Regulation Act (“Standard Conditions Act”) and the Arbitration Act of Korea. In summary, the KPILA offers some legal bases to protect consumers participating in the Internet Purchases, because in 2001, the legislators had included in the KPILA special rules designed to protect consumers in the context of international jurisdiction and applicable law. In contrast, the Arbitration Act does not include any special rules designed to protect consumers and leaves the task to the Standard Conditions Act, in which there exists a great legal uncertainty. This situation needs to be improved. There had been an attempt to improve the situation in the process of amending the Arbitration Act, which was amended in 2016, but unfortunately it had failed. More concretely, the author deals with the following issues: different types of Internet Purchases and contractual relationships (Chapter II.), the definition of consumers eligible for protection under the KPILA (Chapter III.), international jurisdiction in the Internet Purchases and the protection of consumers (Chapter IV.), applicable law in the Internet Purchases and the protection of consumers in the context of litigation (Chapter V.), arbitration agreement in the Internet Purchases and the protection of consumers (Chapter VI.). Finally, the author summarizes the discussions for each type of Internet Purchases (Chapter VII.). The author emphasizes that, rather than prohibiting a pre-dispute arbitration agreement in its entirety, we should introduce a reasonable consumer arbitration system, designed to offer an appropriate level of protection to consumers and to ensure the advantages of arbitration regime. To achieve this goal, we will have to do more systematic and in-depth research to find a desirable solution. In that process, we should pay attention to the definition and the scope of ‘consumers.’ With the definition of the so-called ‘passive consumers’ being expanded under the KPILA, we need to think about how to establish the definition and the scope of consumers under the Arbitration Act and the Standard Conditions Act. In addition, the author suggests that we try to improve the settlement system by utilizing and improving the consumer groups or consumer protection agencies in Korea, and through the cooperation of the consumer protection agencies of the concerned countries, since litigation and arbitration are not the only way to settle the disputes arising from the Internet Purchases.

소비자계약 및 그 분쟁해결조항에 대한 소비자보호의 범위와 한계

김인호 국제거래법학회 2020 國際去來法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

국제거래가 활성화되고 또한 전자거래가 보편화되면서 소비자가 웹사이트를 통하여 국제적으로 영업을 영위하는 판매업자로부터 재화를 구매하는 경우가 흔한 일이 되었다. 판매업자는 각국에 산재하는 소비자와의 거래를 통일적으로 규율하기 위하여 자신의 영업소 소재지법을 준거법으로 하는 준거법 조항과 분쟁은 그 영업소가 있는 국가의 법원에서만 해결하기로 하는 전속적 국제재판관할조항이나 중재로 해결하기로 하는 중재조항이 포함된표준약관을 계약에 편입하는 방법으로 영업을 영위하고 소비자는 협상력이 제한되어 개별적으로 협상하지 못하고 약관의 내용을 수용하여 거래를 할 수 밖에 없고 그 결과 내용을확인하고자 할 유인도 느끼지 못한 채 거래에 나아가게 된다. 예를 들어 소비자의 상거소지법에 의하면 소비자가 재화를 공급받은 날로부터 일정 기간 내에 계약에 관한 청약철회를 할 수 있으나 준거법인 판매업자의 영업소 소재지법에 의하면 소비자에게 이러한 숙려기간이 부여되지 아니하는 경우 당사자의 준거법 선택과 관련하여 사회경제적 약자인 소비자의 상거소지법의 강행규정에 의한 보호를 부여하여 소비자의 이익을 보호할 필요가 있다. 또한 국제재판관할합의와 중재합의가 사안의 모든 사정에 비추어 소비자에게 부당하게불리한 경우 분쟁해결합의를 수용할 수 밖에 없었던 소비자를 보호할 필요가 있다. 소비자가 직업 또는 영업활동 외의 목적으로 체결하는 소비자계약의 범주를 소비자의 정당한 기대의 보호와 상대방의 거래의 안전이라는 관점에서 합리적으로 획정할 필요가 있다. 소비자계약의 범주에 들어오는 경우 당사자자치를 통한 계약관계의 안정적 규율을 위하여 당사자의 의사를 가능한 한 존중하되 사회경제적 약자인 소비자를 협상력의 불균형과 정보의비대칭성로부터 보호하기 위하여 소비자의 상거소지법의 강행규정에 의한 보호를 관철하여당사자의 준거법 선택과 소비자의 보호를 조화롭게 추구하여야 한다. 국제재판관할합의와중재합의가 본 계약인 소비자계약으로부터 독립성이 인정되는지 여부와 약관을 통하여 본계약에 편입될 경우 편입 여부에 대한 준거법을 어떻게 파악할 것인지 검토한다. 국제재판관할합의와 중재합의에 대하여 국제사법이 규정하는 소비자의 상거소지법의 강행규정에 의한 소비자보호를 관철하는 것이 가능한지를 검토한다. 국제재판관할합의와 중재합의는 절차적 성격을 지니고 있어 국제사법의 준거법에 대한 규정이 적용될 수 있는지 의문이 있으나 그 계약적 성격을 주목하여 이를 긍정할 수 있을 것이다. 국제재판관할합의와 중재합의가 유효하게 성립하였는지의 준거법에 대하여 검토한다. 이와 관련하여 법정지의 국제적 강행규정과 공서규정에 의한 규율을 살펴본다. 국제재판관할합의와 중재합의가 약관에 의하여 소비자계약에 편입될 경우 약관규제법에 의한 규율의 가능성과 필요성에 대하여 검토하고 그러함에 있어 준거법은 어느 국가의 법인지와 약관규제법을 국제적 강행규정으로 볼수 있는지 여부를 살펴본다. 마지막으로 국제사법이 규정하는 소비자계약에 관한 국제재판관할합의에 대한 특칙을 검토한다. 국제거래라는 환경 속에 위치하는 소비자계약을 접근함에 있어 사회경제적 약자인 소비자의 이익을 보호하는 법제를 어떻게 해석하고 정립하여나아갈 것인지를 소비자의 정당 ... There has been a growth in the international trade and electronic commerce. It is not rare any more to see consumers purchase goods through internet websites from internationally operating companies. The companies employ an international marketing strategy to regulate their transactions uniformly with multiple consumers across jurisdictions. They seek to incorporate by reference their general terms and conditions with applicable law as the law of their place of business and choice of court clause for their place of business or arbitration clause. General terms and conditions are drafted by the companies which hold greater bargaining power. Individual negotiation of terms would be impossible. Therefore, consumers have limited incentives to familiarize themselves with the terms. It is necessary to protect consumers as the weaker contract party by providing protection afforded to them by mandatory provisions of the law of the country where they have their habitual residence. Mandatory provisions could grant consumers a period in which they can withdraw from the contract without penalty even where the applicable law provides to the contrary. Where a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement is unreasonably disadvantageous to consumers, the consumers are also to be protected. It is sensible to delimitate the scope of consumer contracts by striking the balance between the legitimate protection of the consumers and impartiality of the transactions. Where a contract falls under the scope of consumer contracts, it is required to respect party autonomy to improve the parties’ foreseeability in their legal relationship on the one hand and to grant protection afforded to consumers by mandatory provisions to cure information asymmetries. This essay reviews the law applicable to separability and incorporation by reference of a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement. Also the essay examines whether mandatory provisions in the law of the consumer’s habitual residence confer protection even with a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement. While a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional and thus procedural agreement, it is also evidently contractual. Therefore, the rules of private international law will apply to a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement. This essay reviews the law applicable to a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement. In doing so the essay examines the intervention of the public policy and overriding mandatory rules of the law of the forum. Where a choice of court agreement or an arbitration agreement is incorporated from a party’s general terms and conditions, the essay reviews the application of Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions depending on whether the act is the forum’s law and whether it is overriding mandatory rules of the law of the forum. Lastly the essay examines the relevant provisions of Private International Law regulating a choice of court agreement in consumer contracts. This essay suggests how to strike a balance between the protection of the consumer’s legitimate expectations and the impartiality of the international trade in establishing a legal regime to protect consumers as the weaker contract party in international trade. It remains to be seen how to improve the foreseeability in consumer contracts and to balance these two conflicting values in harmony.