메타버스 시대의 도래와 소비자보호법의 입법과제 - 온라인 플랫폼의 약관과 약관규제법의 과제를 중심으로 - = The Advent of the Meta-verse Era and Legislative Tasks of Consumer Laws

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The subject of application under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act involves terms and conditions unilaterally set by one party in advance, and the target for regulation is the party presenting such terms to the counterparty. However, cases have arisen where entities, such as the metaverse or online platforms, define the legal relationships between parties and present them to those parties without being a direct party to the contract. This has raised the question of whether the contract content and the operating business can be considered as terms under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and whether the operator qualifies as a business entity under this law.
In the Supreme Court ruling on the Booking.com case, the court upheld the lower court’s decision, denying the operator’s status as a business entity under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. However, in the Agoda case, the court recognized the operator as a business entity based on its substantial role as a contracting party. This judgment on Booking.com demonstrates that the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act has not effectively responded to new types of transactions that have emerged. The original intent of the Act is to protect the weaker party in a contract who, despite being a contracting party, does not participate in drafting the terms and lacks bargaining power.
Yet, limiting the application solely to contracting parties means that operators, who exert substantial control over contract content, are not regulated. Therefore, there is a need to amend the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act to ensure that its legislative intent is fully reflected, taking into account the evolving nature of transactions. Suggested measures include removing the requirement that the definition of terms and business entities must be limited to contracting parties or including operators who create and apply terms to the parties without being contracting parties as subjects of regulation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 서희석, "통신판매중개자의 법적 지위와 책임" 7 (7): 2021

2 고형석, "전자상거래소비자보호법의 현안과 입법동향에 관한 연구" 27 (27): 2020

3 오병철, "전자상거래법상의 거래 플랫폼 규제와 개선방안" 41 (41): 2017

4 이병준, "전자상거래 플랫폼과 거래관계에 대한 책임" 5 (5): 2019

5 서종희, "입법원칙을 기초로 바라본 전자상거래법 전부개정안의 의미와 한계" 7 (7): 2021

6 송순영, "에어비엔비(Airbnb)사례를 통해 본 공유경제 관련 법 제정 현황 분석" (64) : 2015

7 김진우, "약관의 편입통제" 8 (8): 2015

8 공정거래위원회, "약관규제의 실제"

9 홍대식, "약관규제법상 불공정약관조항 사용금지 의무위반에 대한 행정적 책임 주체와 관련문제" 29 (29): 2022

10 김진우, "스마트계약과 약관통제에 관한 시론(試論)적 고찰" 27 (27): 2020

11 김도년, "소비자보호법상 청약철회권 행사와 사업자의 부당행위" 5 (5): 2019

12 한국소비자원, "보도자료 : 해외 호텔예약시 꼼꼼히 살펴보고 결제해야"

13 한국소비자원, "보도자료 : 해외 호텔예약 사이트 취소 환불 표시 미흡, 피해 유의해야"

14 공정거래위원회, "보도자료 : 에어비앤비 환불 정책상 불공정약관 시정명령"

15 공정거래위원회, "보도자료 : 에어비앤비 아일랜드 및 대표자 에온 헤시온 검찰 고발"

16 양형우, "민법총칙" 정독 2024

17 문승혁, "메타버스의 발전과 적용이 산업과 사회에 미치는 영향" 8 (8): 2022

18 이승민, "디지털 플랫폼의 약관법상 지위와 책임 : 부킹닷컴 사건 판결을 중심으로" (220) : 2024

19 서종희, "도서정가제의 목적과 해석의 한계" 6 (6): 2020

20 박신욱, "도서정가제에 대한 우리나라와 독일의 법체계에 대한 비교법적 고찰" 27 (27): 2020

21 고형석, "공유경제산업과 소비자보호" 34 (34): 2017

22 최나진, "개정 전자상거래소비자보호법상의 통신판매중개자의 지위와 책임" 40 (40): 2016

23 Michael A. Cusumano, "The Business of Platforms" HarperCollins 2019

24 Jacques Crémer, "Competition policy for the digital era" Publications Office of the European Union 2019