자동차관리법 제47조의2와 제47조의3에 대한 비판적 연구- 자동차 중재신청을 위한 하자개념을 중심으로 -

Abstract

With the revision of the Motor Vehicle Management Act in 2018, an arbitration procedure for exchange and refund for defective cars was introduced. However, there are doubts about whether the new system will actually help consumers' rights. According to statistics, there has been no case of exchange or refund through arbitration under the revised Motor Vehicle Management Act. In addition, there have been many cases in which applications were withdrawn during the arbitration period and the purpose of the system was obscured through a back-side agreement. For the effective operation of the arbitration application under the revised Motor Vehicle Management Act, the improvements about meaning of “defect” in Motor Vehicle are as follows. First of all, the definition of defect for an arbitration must be clearly defined. The reason is why the concepts of defect and nonconformity are not clearly distinguished under the Motor Vehicle Management Act. Secondly, the estimation period for defects for arbitration is too short, 6 months. It should be taken into account that the EU sets the period to one year. The six-month defect estimation period collides with the one-year arbitration application period. To solve this problems, it is possible to consider deleting the six-month defect estimation period. Or, a revision is needed to extend the estimation period of defect to one year.