온라인 광고계약과 전자상거래법상 청약철회에 관한 연구

Abstract

E-commerce is one of the main ways for not only consumers but also business operators to purchase goods. However, it should be basically denied whether the e-commerce law can be applied to e-commerce between businesses. But the Electronic Commerce Act regulates the category of consumers very widely, and even if this is not the case, the application of the Electronic Commerce Act is recognized when trading with the same status and conditions as consumers. In the target judgment examined in this paper, the court recognized the consumer nature of advertisers and applied the e-commerce law. This point is reasonable, and in interpreting Article 17 (3) of the Electronic Commerce Act, it is also reasonable that the starting date of the withdrawal period was set as the date when the supply was completed, not the initial supply date. However, the starting date regulated in Article 17 (3) of the E-Commerce Act is not only the supply date, but there are days when the default was known or could be known, and if either period elapses, the consumer cannot withdraw an offer. Nevertheless, this ruling has a problem in that the court did not review whether the latter period had passed. In addition, the court took a daily calculation method in calculating the advertising cost to determine the refund amount among the effects of withdrawal of subscription, but it would also be a problem that it did not consider the cost of producing advertisements. Lastly, the reason why the advertising agency's liability for damages was not recognized is because there was no Plaintiff's claim, but it is necessary to recognize the advertising agency's liability for damages by applying the Civil Act.