본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

무권한 전자지급거래 시 위험분배 원칙 -전자금융거래법 제9조의 비판적 검토-

Risk Allocation of Unanthorised Electronic Payment

정대익
한국경영법률학회 (The Korean Academic Society Of Business Administration And Law)|2008.10|경영법률 (Journal of Business Administration & Law)|제19권 제1호|pp. 259-329

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

고의면책약관통지중과실위임책임제한도덕적 해이contracting outgross negligencenotice무권한 전자지급채권의 준점유자에 대한 변제수임인의 손해배상청구권unauthorised electronic paymentpayment in good faith to possessor of a claimmandateclaim of mandatary for damageswillful misconductlimitation of liabilitymoral hazard
주제분류법학

초록

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 theft and alteration the payor should be also free from the loss arisen after notice.

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 theft and alteration the payor should be also free from the loss arisen after notice.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. 김형배, "채권의 준점유자에 대한 변제", 법학논집, 26 (1991), 고려대학교 법학연구원
  2. 김형배, "민법학강의" (2006), 박영사
  3. 김형배, "채권총론(민법요점강의 III)" (1997), 박영사
  4. 나승성, "“전자금융거래법안의 법리 연구“,「지급결제와 정보기술」(2003. 12)", ~ (2003)
  5. 명순구, "프랑스민법전" (2004), 법문사
  6. 손주찬, "상법(하)" (2005), 박영사
  7. 양창수, "독일민법학논문선" (2005), 박영사
  8. 이은영, "약관규제법" (1994), 박영사
  9. 이은영, "채권총론" (2006), 박영사
  10. 이준상, "은행원의 어음 수표법" (1993), 육법사
  11. 재정경제부 금융정책국, "「전자금융거래법안 참고자료(2005. 11)」", ~ (2005)
  12. 정경영, "무권한 전자금융거래에서 금융기관의 책임", 금융법연구, 3(1) (2006), 한국금융법학회
  13. 정경영, "전자금융거래와 법" (2007), 박영사
  14. 정동윤, "신용카드의 도난과 분실", 상사법연구, 6 (1988), 한국상사법학회
  15. 정동윤, "어음 수표법", 박영사
  16. 정진세, "“은행의 위조어음?수표지급에 관한 책임분담(상), 판례월보, 제291호(1994.12), 판례월보사", ~ (1994)
  17. 정진세, "“은행의 위조어음?수표지급에 관한 책임분담(하)”, 판례월보, 제292호(1995.1), 판례월보사", ~ (1995)
  18. 정진세, "전자자금이체(EFT)에 있어서 책임부담?컴퓨터법에 있어서의 법적 책임에 관한 연구 중에서 EFT 부문", 상사법연구, 14(1) (1995)
  19. 정찬형, "僞造·變造된 어음·手票를 支給한 支給人의 責任", 논문집(경찰대), 4 (1984)
  20. 정찬형, "어음수표법강의" (2004), 박영사
  21. 최기원, "어음 수표법" (2001), 박영사
  22. Bamberger, Heinz Georg, "Kommentar zum B?ger- lichen Gesetzbuch, Bd. 2 M?chen 2003.?", ~ (2003)
  23. Baumbach,Adolf, "Zivilprozessordnung, 65. Aufl. M?chen 2007", ~ (2007)
  24. Baxter Jr., "“The Interrelationship of Article 4A with other Law”, 45 Bus. Law. 1485(1990)", ~ (1990)
  25. Cooter, Robert, "Law and Economics, 3rd ed., Massach- usetts et al. 2000", ~ (2000)
  26. Crabb, John H., "The French Civil Code, Revised Edition, Colorado 1995", ~ (1995)
  27. Dittrich, Robert, "Das Allgemeine B?gerliche Gesetz- buch, 22. Aufl., Wien 2007", ~ (2007)
  28. "Erman, B?gerliches Gesetzbuch, Handkommentar, 10. Aufl. K?n 2000", ~ (2000)
  29. Ferid, Murad, "Hand J Das Franz?ische Zivilrecht, Band 2, Schuldrecht: Die einzelnen Schuld- verh?tnisse, Sachenrecht, 2. Aufl. Frankfurt a.M., 1986", ~ (1986)
  30. French, J. Kevin, ""Article 4A's Treatment of Fraudulent Payment Orders-The Customer's Perspective", 42 Ala. L. Rev. 773 (1991)", ~ (1991)
  31. Honsel, Heinrich, "Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, Art.1-529 OR, 4. Aufl", ~
  32. 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, 1992
  33. Jackson, Howell E, "Analytical Methods For Lawyers, New York 2003", ~ (2003)
  34. K. Schmidt, "M?chener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, Bd. 5, M?chen 2001", ~ (2001)
  35. Koller, Ingo, "“Die Verteilung des Scheckfalschungsrisiks zwischen Kunde und Bank”, NJW 1981", ~ (1981)
  36. "K?pel, Siegfried, Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 2. Aufl. K?n 2000.?", ~ (2000)
  37. Langenbucher, Katja, "Zahlungs- verkehr: Handbuch zum Recht der ?erweisung, Lastschrift, Kreditkarte und der elektronischen Zahlungsformen, M?chen 2004", ~ (2004)
  38. Mann, Ronald J., "Payment Systems And Other Financial Transactions: Cases, Materials, and Problems, 3d. ed. Aspen, 2007", ~ (2007)
  39. "M?chener Kommentar zum B?gerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 4(㎣ 611-704), 4. Aufl, M?chen 2005", ~ (2005)
  40. Neumann, Dania, "Zahlungsverkehr im Internet: rechtliche Grundz?e klassischer und innovativer Zahlungsverfahren, M?chen 2004", ~ (2004)
  41. 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)", ~ (2005)
  42. Palandt, "B?gerliche Gesetzbuch, 66. Aufl. M?chen 2007", ~ (2007)
  43. Pichler, Rufus, "“Krditkartenzahlung im Internet: Die bisherige Verteilung des Mißbrauchsrisikos und der Einfluß der Verwendung von SET”, NJW 1998", ~ (1998)
  44. "Restatement(2d.) of Tort(1977)", ~ (1977)
  45. Rogers, James Steven, ""The Basic Principle of Loss Allocation For Unauthorized Checks", 39 Wake Forest L. Rev. 453, 455-467 (2004)", ~ (2004)
  46. Rosenberg, Leo, "Zivilprozessrecht, 16. Aufl., M?chen 2004", ~ (2004)
  47. Schlegelberger, "Handelsgesetzbuch, Kommentar Band IV 5. Aufl", ~
  48. Schmidt, Christian, "Risikostrukturen des ?erweisungsverkehrs im franz?ischen Recht: Zugleich ein Ausblick auf das neue deutsche ?erweisungsrecht, Berlin 2001", ~ (2001)
  49. Sch?, Wolfgang, ""Prinzipien des bargeldlosen Zahlungsverkehrs", AcP 198(1998)", ~ (1998)
  50. "Schwintowski", Sch?er, Bankrecht, K?n u.a.,1997, 1997
  51. Staudinger, J. von, "Kommentar zum B?gerlichen Gesetzbuch, Buch 2, Recht der Schuldverh?tnidde ㎣657-704(Gesch?tsbesogung) Neubearbeitung, Berlin 2006", ~ (2006)
  52. Taupitz, Jochen, "“Kreditkartenmißbrauch: Thesen zur zulassigen Verteilung des Hatungsrisikos in AGB“, NJW 1996", ~ (1996)
  53. Turner, Paul S., ""Contracting Out of the UCC: Variation by Agreement under Articles3, 4 and 4A", 40 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 443(2006)", ~ (2006)
  54. Ulmer, Eugen, "Das Recht der Wertpapier, Stuttgart 1938", ~ (1938)
  55. "Ulmer", Brandner, pp.2006, ~
  56. Vasseur, Michel, "“Recht und Praxis der Auslandsuberweisung in Frankreich“, in: Hadding", Schneider(Hrsg.), Rechtsprobleme im Auslandsuberweisung Berlin 1992, 1992
  57. Watson, Alan, "Contract Of Mandate In Roman Law, Oxford 1961", ~ (1961)
  58. Wines, Lisa, ""Check Clearing for the 21st Century: Substitute Checks not Sufficient in Disputes Alleging Fraud", 13 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. l. Rep. 95(2006)", ~ (2006)
  59. "Wolf", Horn, pp.1999, ~
  60. Zimmermann, Reinhard, "The Law of Obligations : Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, Cape Town et al. 1990", ~ (1990)
  61. Z?ler, Richard, "Zivilprozessordnung, 25. Aufl. K?n 2005", ~ (2005)
  62. Z?lner, Wolfgang, "Wertpapierrecht, 14. Aufl., M?chen 1987", ~ (1987)
  63. 內田貴, "民法 III" (2004), 東京大?出版?
  64. 淡路剛久, "債??論" (2002), 有斐閣
  65. 我妻?, "新訂債??論" (1964), 岩波書店
  66. 林良平=石田喜久夫=高木多喜男, "債??論" (1996), ?林書院
  67. 澤井裕, "テキストブック 債??論, 有斐閣, 1980.?", ~ (1980)

관련 논문AI추천

전자금융사고의 책임원칙에 대한 연구한정미한국법제연구원 · 법제연구2007 · 제32호전자금융사기로 인한 손해발생시 은행의 배상책임에 관한 연구- 「전자금융거래법」제9조에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -박지선은행법학회 · 은행법연구2013 · 제6권 제2호무권한 전자자금이체로 인한 손실의 부담정봉진법학연구소 · 가천법학2013 · 제6권 제2호전자금융사기 피해에 대한 적극적인 사법구제의 필요성임철현법학연구원 · 법학논고2019 · 제65호전자지급거래의 법적 규율에 관한 비교법적 검토 - 지급서비스제공자와 이용자 간의 관계를 중심으로 -제철웅한국사법학회 · 비교사법2011 · 제18권 제2호전자자금이체상의 당사자의 권리와 의무상에 관한 비교법적 고찰김종칠, 이병렬한국디지털무역연구소 · 디지털무역리뷰2005 · 제3권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

회사지배구조 관련 회사법제의 나아갈 방향 - 2008년 상법개정안 검토 -김재범pp. 1-36금융지주회사와 보험지주회사 규율방식의 분리에 관한 검토김선정pp. 37-74기업에 대한 제재수단의 문제점과 개선방안곽관훈pp. 75-106프랜차이즈의 국제화와 가맹사업법의 문제점최영홍pp. 107-145정관규정을 이용한 적대적 M&A에 대한 방어 - 2008년도 상장회사의 실태에 대한 분석 및 평가를 중심으로 -권재열pp. 147-171
원문 보기