RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    티메프 사태의 진단과 처방: 전자상거래법 개정안 비판과 전자지급결제대행업자(PG) 중심의 해결책 제언 = A Diagnosis and Prescription for the TMEF Incident: A Critique of the E-commerce Act Amendment and a Call for a PG-Centered Regulatory Shift

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The “TMon-WeMakePrice Incident” of July 2024 (hereafter the “TMEF incident”) exposed the structural risks within the e-commerce market. To prevent a recurrence, several amendments to the E-commerce Act have been proposed to impose "legislated settlement deadlines" and "segregation of funds" on online platforms. This paper critically examines whether these proposed amendments can serve as a fundamental solution to the TMEF incident.
    First, regarding the “legislation of settlement deadlines,” this paper points out that the cause of the TMEF incident was not the "long settlement periods" but the "misappropriation of sales proceeds" by the parent company. Therefore, it argues that the rigid imposition of deadlines fails to address the essence of the problem and may, instead, undermine the market's autonomous self-correcting function and conflict with the existing legal framework, such as the Fair Trade Act. It also contends that foreign legislative precedents are difficult to apply in support of the proposed amendment's validity, given their different regulatory targets and principles.
    Next, concerning the “segregation of funds,” the paper argues that while the principle is sound in its aim to prevent misappropriation, imposing this duty on Payment Gateways (PGs) rather than on online platforms is a more efficient and fundamental solution. As the amendment to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (which is already nearing legislative approval) stipulates a separate management duty for PGs, amending the E-commerce Act would only create unnecessary and overlapping regulation.
    In conclusion, this paper emphasizes that to prevent a recurrence of the TMEF incident, the most rational and efficient approach is not to amend the E-commerce Act, but to amend the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. This would reform the payment structure itself, requiring PGs to separately manage sales proceeds and settle them directly with sellers.
    번역하기

    The “TMon-WeMakePrice Incident” of July 2024 (hereafter the “TMEF incident”) exposed the structural risks within the e-commerce market. To prevent a recurrence, several amendments to the E-commerce Act have been proposed to impose "legislated ...

    The “TMon-WeMakePrice Incident” of July 2024 (hereafter the “TMEF incident”) exposed the structural risks within the e-commerce market. To prevent a recurrence, several amendments to the E-commerce Act have been proposed to impose "legislated settlement deadlines" and "segregation of funds" on online platforms. This paper critically examines whether these proposed amendments can serve as a fundamental solution to the TMEF incident.
    First, regarding the “legislation of settlement deadlines,” this paper points out that the cause of the TMEF incident was not the "long settlement periods" but the "misappropriation of sales proceeds" by the parent company. Therefore, it argues that the rigid imposition of deadlines fails to address the essence of the problem and may, instead, undermine the market's autonomous self-correcting function and conflict with the existing legal framework, such as the Fair Trade Act. It also contends that foreign legislative precedents are difficult to apply in support of the proposed amendment's validity, given their different regulatory targets and principles.
    Next, concerning the “segregation of funds,” the paper argues that while the principle is sound in its aim to prevent misappropriation, imposing this duty on Payment Gateways (PGs) rather than on online platforms is a more efficient and fundamental solution. As the amendment to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (which is already nearing legislative approval) stipulates a separate management duty for PGs, amending the E-commerce Act would only create unnecessary and overlapping regulation.
    In conclusion, this paper emphasizes that to prevent a recurrence of the TMEF incident, the most rational and efficient approach is not to amend the E-commerce Act, but to amend the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. This would reform the payment structure itself, requiring PGs to separately manage sales proceeds and settle them directly with sellers.

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼