유럽소비자계약법에 있어서 철회권에 관한 고찰

송민수 전남대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학논총 Vol.28 No.1

The right of withdrawal is still a somewhat problematic legal instrument in many EU States. One of the main problems is that the different European directives that have introduced cooling off-periods, have cooling off-periods of rather different lengths. In this respect, the directives regulating the right of withdrawal lack coherence. The European Commission has recently raised the question whether the duration and modalities of the withdrawal periods should be harmonized and standardized. In this article, I will examine whether such is possible. The main focus of the article is, however, on a more preliminary question, under what circumstances the right of withdrawal is an effective and useful means of consumer protection. In this article, I will try to answer that question for the rights of withdrawal in the European directives mentioned above. This article is based on an analysis of the respective directives introducing a right of withdrawal and a cooling off-period and on their implementation in the German and Dutch legal systems, and on comparative research on Dutch and German law on the matter. From the article it will be clear that even though the rights of withdrawal, as a rule, function relatively well, a more uniform regulation of the right of withdrawal - including a unitary terminology - in European legislation seems feasible. It has been argued that a uniform cooling off-period of two weeks from the moment when the contract is concluded is to be preferred over the existing situation. In order for the right of withdrawal to be effective, the consumer must be made aware of his right of withdrawal by the seller or service provider. Of course, such information must be provided in a clear manner and in clear and intelligible language, in at least the language in which the contract was concluded. Extension of the cooling off-period if the seller or service provider does not properly inform the consumer thereof is an effective incentive to ensure that the seller or service provider will perform his obligation to inform. However, it was argued, as law at some point in time needs to resign itself to reality, a maximum period for the cooling off-period is needed for reasons of legal certainty. The notice of withdrawal should not be subject to any form requirement. However, if the consumer chooses to send a notice in writing or on another durable medium for evidentiary reasons, the dispatch principle should apply as regards the timeliness of the withdrawal. Nevertheless, these observations alone do not suffice to propose a coherent, uniform regime for cooling off-periods. If the European legislator really aspires to develop such a regime, it will of course have to take into account the need to provide clear answers as to the consequences of timely withdrawal, especially as regards the return of goods delivered and money paid, as well as the consequences regarding contracts that are connected with the contract from which the consumer has successfully withdrawn. The right of withdrawal is still a somewhat problematic legal instrument in many EU States. One of the main problems is that the different European directives that have introduced cooling off-periods, have cooling off-periods of rather different lengths. In this respect, the directives regulating the right of withdrawal lack coherence. The European Commission has recently raised the question whether the duration and modalities of the withdrawal periods should be harmonized and standardized. In this article, I will examine whether such is possible. The main focus of the article is, however, on a more preliminary question, under what circumstances the right of withdrawal is an effective and useful means of consumer protection. In this article, I will try to answer that question for the rights of withdrawal in the European directives mentioned above. This article is based on an analysis of the respective directives introducing a right of withdrawal and a cooling off-period and on their implementation in the German and Dutch legal systems, and on comparative research on Dutch and German law on the matter. From the article it will be clear that even though the rights of withdrawal, as a rule, function relatively well, a more uniform regulation of the right of withdrawal - including a unitary terminology - in European legislation seems feasible. It has been argued that a uniform cooling off-period of two weeks from the moment when the contract is concluded is to be preferred over the existing situation. In order for the right of withdrawal to be effective, the consumer must be made aware of his right of withdrawal by the seller or service provider. Of course, such information must be provided in a clear manner and in clear and intelligible language, in at least the language in which the contract was concluded. Extension of the cooling off-period if the seller or service provider does not properly inform the consumer thereof is an effective incentive to ensure that the seller or service provider will perform his obligation to inform. However, it was argued, as law at some point in time needs to resign itself to reality, a maximum period for the cooling off-period is needed for reasons of legal certainty. The notice of withdrawal should not be subject to any form requirement. However, if the consumer chooses to send a notice in writing or on another durable medium for evidentiary reasons, the dispatch principle should apply as regards the timeliness of the withdrawal. Nevertheless, these observations alone do not suffice to propose a coherent, uniform regime for cooling off-periods. If the European legislator really aspires to develop such a regime, it will of course have to take into account the need to provide clear answers as to the consequences of timely withdrawal, especially as regards the return of goods delivered and money paid, as well as the consequences regarding contracts that are connected with the contract from which the consumer has successfully withdrawn.

디지털콘텐츠 공급계약에 대한 철회권 - 독일 및 유럽법상의 논의를 중심으로 -

황원재 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2020 외법논집 Vol.44 No.1

Concerning digital content, the “right of withdrawal, etc.” from E-Commerce Act in Korea may be compared with the right to withdraw from the Consumer Rights Directive in EU or the right to terminate the contract from the Digital Content Directive in EU. This is because the E-Commerce Act in Korea includes the right to withdraw and terminate through the expression “right of withdrawal, etc.”. In particular, the latter right is adventageous to the consumer in the matter of the period of right and the cost burden. This legislative approach, however, is likely to confuse concept. On the other hand, the E-Commerce Act needs a uniform discipline for digital content. The application of different laws according to the type of digital contents can lead to differentiation of legal approach and impair legal stability in the end. In particular, there seems to be a need for uniform discipline regarding the requirement to exclude withdrawal rights in digital content supply contracts. Specifically, the right to withdraw should be excluded if the seal of digital content is damaged or if the user agrees to exclude the withdrawal right in order to use the digital content. Before this, however, notice should be made clear and not misleading about the exclusion of the right to withdraw. Also, if digital content is not provided through tangible media such as streaming, it should be considered that the withdrawal right can be exercised when the consumer is offered the possibility to try the digital content online. Only in this case can the consumer agree to fulfill the contract through trial use, and accept the exclusion of the right to withdraw. Besides, in the case of digital contents, consumers who have excercised the right to withdraw can continue to use the digital contents free of charge without deleting them. Therefore, in addition to consumer protection, contents provider protection needs to be considered. 디지털콘텐츠와 관련하여 우리 전자상거래법상의 “철회권등”은 유럽연합의 소비자권리지침상의 철회권이나 디지털콘텐츠지침상의 계약종료에 관한 권리와 비견될 수 있다. 우리 전자상거래법은 “철회권등”이라는 표현을 통해 일반적인 철회권과 해제권에 가까운 철회권을 인정하고 있기 때문이다. 특히, 후자의 철회권은 권리의 행사기간이나 비용부담의 측면에서 소비자에게 유리하도록 규정되어 있다. 그러나 이러한 입법방식은 개념상 또는 담보책임법과의 관계에서 혼란을 야기할 우려가 있어 보인다. 또한, 우리 전자상거래법에도 디지털콘텐츠에 대한 통일적인 규율이 필요해 보인다. 디지털콘텐츠의 종류에 따라 서로 다른 법규를 적용하는 것은 법적용의 분화를 가져와 법적 안정성을 해칠 우려가 있기 때문이다. 특히, 디지털콘텐츠 공급계약에서 철회권 배제요건과 관련하여 통일적인 규율이 필요해 보인다. 구체적으로 계약을 체결하고 철회권의 행사기간이 개시된 후에 디지털콘텐츠의 봉인을 훼손하거나 디지털콘텐츠를 이용하기 위하여 철회권 배제에 동의하면 철회권이 배제된다고 규정하면서, 이러한 소비자의 행동에 앞서 철회권의 배제 가능성에 대하여 명확하고 오해하지 않도록 안내할 필요성이 있다. 또한 디지털콘텐츠가 스트리밍과 같이 유형의 매체를 통해 공급되지 않는 경우, 소비자가 해당 디지털콘텐츠를 온라인으로 시험해 볼 가능성이 제공된 때부터 철회권 행사기간이 개시된다고 보아야 한다. 이 경우에만 소비자는 시험사용을 통해 계약의 이행에 동의할 수 있고, 이를 통해 철회권을 배제 시킬 수 있기 때문이다. 그 외에도 디지털콘텐츠의 경우, 사업자는 소비자가 철회권을 행사한 후에 디지털콘텐츠를 삭제하지 않고 무상으로 계속하여 이용할 위험에 상시 노출되어 있으므로, 이러한 한도에서 소비자의 보호 외에도 사업자의 보호가 고려될 필요가 있다.

유럽공통매매법(CESL) 상의 소비자철회권에 관한 연구

박희호 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.66 No.-

Common European Sales Law(CESL) provides that the consumer may in principle exercise the right to withdraw within 14 days from the day on which the consumer has taken delivery of the goods(Art. 40 CESL). When he exercises the right of withdrawal, the distance contracts and off-premises contracts terminate immediately. But CESL does not provide concrete effects of the exercise of the right of withdrawal. This incompleteness of the rules of CESL shows us the situation in which the right of withdrawal does not go well with the traditional contract theory. The former is in the late 20th century introduced in our legal system to protect the consumer. It gives him the right to free himself from his obligations without any reasons. But such content of the right of withdrawal collides with the traditional contract principle, pacta sunt servanda and the right of withdrawal has not yet fixed position in contractual law system. This situation results again from the insufficient establishment of the nature of the right to withdraw. Nonetheless, the right of withdrawal cannot be excluded from CESL. The consumer in EU countries, who has long enjoyed the protection through the right of withdrawal, will consider the common sales law that has no rule of the right of withdrawal as regressive. The maker of CESL has no choice but to proceed with the legislation in incomplete form in relation to the right of withdrawal. Otherwise he would give up the whole CESL.

사업자의 계약 상대방 선택의 자유와 소비자 철회권의 긴장 관계- 누적된 철회 횟수 내지 높은 반품율을 이유로 한 사이버몰의 계정폐쇄조치 -

정신동 법무부 2018 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.81

When the right of withdrawal of the consumer is exercised and the contractual relationship is liquidated based on this, substantial costs are inevitably incurred for the entrepreneurs. Therefore, the entrepreneur has to reduce the frequency of the exercise of the right of withdrawal so that the entrepreneur has a profit to attract the economic transaction. In this paper, The question of whether the entrepreneur is allowed to close a customer's account based on the withdrawal behavior of consumers in E - Commerce (due to frequent withdrawal) under the Consumer Contracts Law was examined on the basis of discussions in Germany. First, if the operator can terminate the membership contract because of the cumulative withdrawal frequency, psychological pressure to give up the withdrawal of the contract can be a problem. In the end, the circumvention of the right to exercise the right of withdrawal may be a problem. Second, in order for the termination of membership contracts to be allowed for reasons of frequent withdrawal, it is necessary to warn the entrepreneurs of the possible termination of membership contracts by blocking the account, and a large number of returns should be observed. And by reviewing the attributes of the ordered product type and other individual circumstances, the return behavior of the consumer should be unreasonable from an objective point of view. Third, if the right of withdrawal is abused, there is no risk of bypassing the exercise of the right of withdrawal due to account closure. In this case, there is no interruption of the consumer's right to exercise the right of withdrawal and the contract can be terminated because of the illegal exercise of the right to withdrawal. 소비자의 철회권이 행사되고 이를 근거로 계약관계의 청산이 이뤄지는 경우 사업자에 있어서는 고객에게 전가할 수 없는 상당한 비용들이 필연적으로 발생한다. 따라서 사업자에게는 철회권을 보장해 주면서도, 소비자로 하여금 되도록 철회권 행사 횟수를 줄이도록 하여 전체적으로 수지에 맞는 거래로 유인할 필요가 생긴다. 이에 본고에서는 통신판매에 있어 소비자의 철회 행태를 근거로, 특히 빈번한 철회로 인한 높은 반품율을 이유로 사업자가 계정폐쇄조치를 취하는 것이 우리 소비자계약법상 허용되는지 문제를 독일에서의 논의상황을 토대로 살펴보았고, 아래의 결론을 도출하였다. 첫째, 누적된 철회 횟수를 이유로 사업자가 계정폐쇄조치를 취하고 이를 통해 회원가입계약을 해지할 수 있다면, 향후 사업자와의 거래가 중단될 수 있다는 위협이 기 체결된 매매계약의 철회를 포기하게끔 하는 심리적 압박이 될 수 있다. 결국 철회권 행사의 우회적 회피로서 소비자 철회권을 규율하고 있는 강행규정에 반하는 탈법행위가 문제될 수 있다. 둘째, 빈번한 철회를 이유로 한 회원가입계약의 해지가 탈법행위에 해당되지 않기 위해서는 ⅰ) 계정 차단에 의한 회원가입계약의 해지 가능성에 대해 사업자의 사전 경고가 있어야 하고, ⅱ) 철회권을 우회적으로 회피할 위험이 야기되지 않을 만큼 다수의 반품 행위가 관찰되어야 한다. 그리고 ⅲ) 주문된 상품 종류의 속성 및 기타 개별적 정황을 고려해 보았을 때 소비자의 반품 행위가 객관적 시각에서 비합리적이어야 한다. 셋째, 권리 남용 법리가 적용되어 소비자 철회권 행사가 저지될 수 있다면, 철회권을 남용하는 소비자와의 계속되는 거래를 피할 목적으로 계정을 폐쇄한다 할지라도 철회권 행사의 우회적 회피 위험이 야기되지 않는다. 소비자의 적법한 철회권 행사가 잠식될 수 있는 위험이 문제되지 않고, 민법 제2조 제2항에 의해 허용되지 않는 위법한 철회권 행사를 이유로 회원가입계약을 해지하는 것이기 때문이다.

주주의 의결권행사에 있어서 철회의 자유와 제한

김성탁(Kim, Seong-Tak) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2015 법과기업연구 Vol.5 No.2

This paper analyzes the legal issues relating to the withdrawal of the exercise of voting rights in the resolution of the general shareholders" meeting. The question is whether a revocation of the vote even after receipt by the company is still possible. Controversy may be provoked as to whether the general principles relating to the withdrawal of intention can be applied to the exercise of voting rights. Some scholars deny its application. As for the exercise of voting rights by electronic means, Commercial Code Decree Article 13(3) prohibits the withdrawal and changes of the exercise of voting rights. However, basically from the perspective of fundamental principles as freedom of withdrawal even in voting rights, this paper presents the view that the general principles relating to the withdrawal of intention may be applicable to the exercise of voting rights in the following reasons: (ⅰ) Pursuant to Civil Code Article 111(1), the declaration of intention made to another party can be withdrawn before reaching the other side. Applying this principle to the withdrawal of the exercise of voting rights, persons who exercise the voting rights may withdraw it prior to the final resolution, even though after the voting has arrived at the company; (ⅱ) Above conclusion does not hurt the stability of the resolution of the general shareholders" meeting, if the time of withdrawal is prior to resolutions. Finally, this paper also presents the opinion that it is also possible to repose restrictions on the exercise of voting rights by the Articles of Incorporation.

유럽연합 소비자권리지침상 청약철회권에 관한 연구 -우리 법과의 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로-

고형석 ( Hyoung Suk Ko ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.29 No.4

The right of withdrawal introduced to protect consumers in terms of special consumer contracts could be called the most fundamental right in this field. However, lots of controversy are still being raised, although about 20 years have already passed since the right of withdrawal had been introduced. Also, the environment of consumer contracts is changing a great deal as we enter the 21st century. Accordingly, the controversy on whether the right of withdrawal is really appropriate for the changed consumer contracts environment is being raised. Therefore, it could be said that we`re at a point in time requiring an overall reexamination on the right of withdrawal. Although the approach from very diverse aspects is required for this, one of the typical methods could be called a comparative study with the foreign legislation which solves the problem of this with the theory of legislation. Naturally, the legislation case of a foreign country is not the correct answer. But it would be said that its significance as important data in solving the problem of this is great. From this aspect, the EU consumer rights directive enacted recently is an important material in considering the improvement plan on our legislation. In this paper, the improvement plan on our legislation has been examined while performing a comparative analysis on the details related to the right of withdrawal according to the EU consumer rights directive, the door to door sales act and the electronic commerce consumer protection act. Naturally, the EU consumer rights directive does not present answers on everything. But we cannot deny the fact that it allows a significant implication. However, the details of EU consumer rights directive are not perfect and the fact that in contains some problems is a factor that must be considered in preparing the improvement plan of our legislation. Therefore, the improvement plan on the legislation related to the right of withdrawal in the door to door sales act and the electronic commerce consumer protection act would have to be prepared through a very in-depth investigation on the problems created in the process after accepting the positive factors of the EU consumer rights directive.

전자상거래법상 청약철회권과 포장의 훼손 - 청약철회권 배제사유에 관한 문제를 중심으로 -

이병준,곽윤성 한국소비자법학회 2019 소비자법연구 Vol.5 No.3

전자상거래법은 소비자와 사업자 사이의 적절한 이익 균형을 위해 청약철회권과 함께 그 배제사유에 대해서도 별도의 명문규정을 두고 있다. 그러나 이러한 배제사유는 청약철회에 따른 경제적 손실을 회피하려고 하는 사업자에 의해 악용될 소지가 있다. 특히 전자상거래 방식을 통해 구매한 전자제품, 명품 등의 포장이 훼손된 경우에 사업자가 청약철회권 배제사유를 부당하게 확대해석하여 소비자의 청약철회를 회피하려는 사례가 빈번하게 발생하고 있다. 상품의 포장이 개봉된 경우 더 이상 새 상품으로 판매하기 어렵다는 문제가 있으나, 청약철회권 배제사유는 원칙이 아닌 예외에 해당하므로 이는 엄격하고 좁게 해석되어야 할 것이다. 본 논문은 전자제품 등의 포장 훼손에 따른 청약철회권 배제 여부를 둘러싸고 각종 법적 문제가 지속적으로 대두되고 있는 거래실정에 문제의식을 갖고 이에 대한 합리적 해결 방향을 모색해 보았다. The Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc. stipulates the right of withdrawal and the reasons for excluding the right of withdrawal to ensure a proper balance of interests between consumers and traders. However, this exclusion could be exploited by traders who are trying to avoid economic losses from exercising the right of withdrawal. In particular, when packaging of electronic products and luxurious goods purchased through e-commerce is damaged, traders often try to prevent the consumers from exercising the right of withdrawal by unfairly interpreting the reasons for excluding the right of withdrawal. If the packaging of a product is opened, it is no longer conceived as a new product. However, the reasons for excluding the right of withdrawal should be interpreted rigorously and narrowly since they are exceptions, not principles. This paper points out problems regarding the exclusion of the right of withdrawal that often lead to legal disputes and seeks solutions to those problems especially looking at cases about damaged packaging of products including electronic products.

모바일 앱 및 인앱결제와 소비자 철회권

김소연 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2020 외법논집 Vol.44 No.1

The provision about the Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts under ACT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, ETC. and CONTENT INDUSTRY PROMOTION ACT gives the consumer(or user) the right to withdraw. However, there is no clear standard between providers, stores, and users for the Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts related to mobile apps and in-app payments. An app contract consists of a three-sided relationship between the provider, the store, and the user. In the case of paid app contracts, apps downloaded to mobile devices may be classified as real estate sales. But it is difficult to set a free app contract as a typical contract. Since in-app payments are paid, they can be regarded as having the nature of trading if they can have exclusive control(II). The provision about the Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts under ACT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, ETC. and CONTENT INDUSTRY PROMOTION ACT gives consumers the opportunity to unilaterally free themselves from the binding force of the contract without the provider's fault. Since ACT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, ETC. is advantageous over CONTENT INDUSTRY PROMOTION ACT, the former takes precedence(Ⅲ). Since ACT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, ETC. also allows digital content to be withdrawn, the Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts also apply to app contracts. However, it should not be the reason for legal exclusion. The provider may give the consumer a method of trial use to exclude the right to withdraw(Ⅳ). Apple's and Google's terms also have rules regarding the Right of Withdrawal in Consumer Contracts(V). This Right for mobile apps and in-app payments will have a greater benefit for the provider due to the promotion of purchases, while there is a possibility of abuse. 전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한 법률 및 콘텐츠산업 진흥법상 청약철회 등 규정은 소비자(또는 사용자)가 일방적으로 철회할 수 있는 권리를 부여한다. 하지만 모바일 앱 및 인앱결제와 관련한 소비자 철회권에 대하여 제공자, 스토어, 사용자 사이에 명확한 기준이 제시되어 있지 않고 공통된 인식도 부족하다. 앱 계약은 제공자, 스토어, 사용자 사이의 3면 관계로 이루어진다. 유료 앱 계약의 경우 모바일 기기에 다운 받아 화체된 앱은 동산의 매매로 분류할 가능성이 있으나 무료 앱에 대한 계약은 하나의 전형계약으로 정하기는 어렵다. 인앱결제는 유료이므로 배타적인 지배를 할 수 있다면 매매의 성질을 갖는다고 볼 수도 있다(Ⅱ). 전자상거래법 및 콘텐츠산업법상 소비자 철회권은 사업자의 귀책사유 없이도 소비자에게 일방적으로 계약의 구속력에서 해방될 수 있는 기회를 부여한다. 양법의 관계에 대하는 전자상거래법이 콘텐츠산업법보다 유리하므로 전자상거래법이 우선적용된다(Ⅲ). 전자상거래법은 디지털콘텐츠도 철회가 가능한 것으로 하고 있어 앱 계약에서도 소비자 철회권은 적용된다. 다만 소비자 철회권의 법정배제 사유에 해당하지 않아야한다. 사업자는 소비자 철회권을 배제하기 위해서 시험사용 등의 방법을 제공할 수 있다(Ⅳ). 대표적인 스토어인 애플과 구글은 약관에서 소비자 철회권과 관련한 규정을 두고 있다(Ⅴ). 모바일 앱 및 인앱결제의 소비자 철회권은 구매촉진의 효과가 있는 반면 악용의 가능성이 존재한다는 점에서 보다 풍부한 논의를 통해 사회적으로 공통된 기준을 마련해야 할 것이다.

소비자보호법상 권리매매에서 청약철회에 관한 연구

고형석 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2020 서울법학 Vol.27 No.4

Consumer Protection Acts which aim to protect consumers in consumer contracts should not limit objects. However, the Consumer Basic Law and the Special Transaction Consumer Protection 3 Acts restrict the object. In particular, it does not specify rights or specifies only some rights. In addition, the Special Transactions Consumer Protection 3 Acts contain rights in the service. Therefore, different objects are regulated equally. As a result, it is insufficient to protect consumers and regulations on operators are also unfair because it does not regulate consumer contracts according to the nature of rights. The problems are summarized as follows. First, applying the provisions on service to the right makes the withdrawal right of consumers unfavorable. If the transfer of rights is initiated, consumer cannot withdraw. Second, if the consumer withdraws, the transferred rights do not have to be returned. The starting date for the refund period is the day the consumer sent the withdrawal. As a result, a business operator who refunds the money will not be given back the right. And even though the operator does not know the fact of withdrawal, it can bear the delay interest. The reason for thses problems is that the rights are included in the service and the regulations on the service are applied unconditionally to the rights. Therefore, the Special Transaction Consumer Protection 3 Acts should not include the rights in the service but should be regulated separately. 소비자계약에서 소비자보호를 목적으로 하는 소비자보호법은 원칙적으로 목적물에 대해 제한하지 않아야 한다. 그러나 소비자기본법과 특수거래 소비자보호 3법에서는 목적물을 제한하고 있다. 특히, 권리에 대해서는 규정하지 않거나 일부 권리에 대해서만 규정하고 있다. 그 결과, 공법적 규제까지 병행하고 있는 소비자보호법은 규정하지 않은 권리에 대한 거래를 규율하지 못함으로 인해 소비자보호에 있어 한계를 가지고 있다. 또한 특수거래 소비자보호 3법에서는 권리를 용역에 포함시켜 규율함으로 인해 성질이 다른 목적물을 동일하게 규율하고 있다. 이로 인해 권리의 성질에 적합하게 소비자계약을 규율하지 못함에 따라 소비자보호에 미흡할 뿐만 아니라 사업자에 대한 규제 역시 부당한 요소를 가지고 있다. 이 논문에서는 권리매매에서의 청약철회를 중심으로 특수거래 소비자보호 3법과 이와 관련된 표준약관이 가지고 있는 문제점을 살펴보았다. 이를 요약하여 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 권리는 용역과 다르지만, 특수거래 소비자보호 3법에서는 권리를 용역에 포함시켜 용역에 관한 규정을 무조건적으로 적용한 결과, 소비자의 청약철회권이 유명무실하게 되었다. 즉, 전자상거래법에서는 용역의 제공이 개시된 경우에 청약철회가 배제되지만, 용역에는 권리가 포함된다. 따라서 권리의 이전이 개시되면 그 행사 여부와 관계없이 소비자는 청약을 철회할 수 없다. 둘째, 권리매매에 있어 청약철회에 따른 효과에 있어 전자상거래법에서는 반환을 배제하고 있으며, 대금환급기한의 기산일을 청약철회서의 발신일로 정하고 있다. 그 결과, 사업자는 대금을 반환하였음에도 불구하고, 권리를 반환받지 못하게 된다. 또한 청약철회의 사실을 알지 못한 상태에서 동법 위반에 따른 지연이자를 부담하게 되는 문제가 발생한다. 이러한 문제가 발생하게 된 근본적인 원인은 권리를 용역에 포함시켜 규율하고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 특수거래 소비자보호 3법에서는 권리를 용역에 포함시킬 것이 아닌 별도로 규정함과 더불어 청약철회의 요건 및 효과에 있어서도 권리의 특성에 적합하게 규정하여야 할 것이다. 마지막으로 특수거래 소비자보호 3법에서는 청약철회권에 대해 그 요건 및 효과를 상이하게 규정하고 있지만, 동일한 청약철회권에 대해 상이하게 규정하는 것은 소비자 및 사업자에게 혼란을 유발한다. 따라서 거래의 특수성이 있는 경우를 제외하고, 그 요건 및 효과는 동일하게 규정하는 것이 타당할 것이다.

연명의료중단등결정에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점

박승호 아주대학교 법학연구소 2018 아주법학 Vol.11 No.4

The withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is the legal issue that the duty of state to protect life and the patient's right of self-determination collide into each other. The duty of state to protect life does not predominate over patient's right of self-determination if the patient is suffering severe pain in the end stage of life. This article deals with constitutional basis, scope and the confirmation of patient's intention in case of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Constitutional scholars assert right to life, right of self-determination, right to prolong life, right to live with dignity, right of bodily integrity, right to die, and so on as the constitutional basis of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. I assert that first, the constitutional basis is the right of self-determination(Article 10 of the Constitution) if there is explicit or presumptive intention of patient and second, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment should be executed for the patient's best interest by balancing interests taking all circumstances and evidential data into account if it is impossible to confirm the intention of patient. The life-sustaining treatment determination act provides that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment only applies to the patient in the process of dying. This excessively restricts the terminal patient's right of self-determination and violates the principle of equality. And the life-sustaining treatment determination act confines the life-sustaining treatments to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hemodialysis, administration of anticancer drugs, and wearing a respirator. This also excessively limits self-determination right. With regard to confirming patient's intention, first, decision should be made according to patient's intention if there is explicit intention of patient, second, decision-making is possible and needs informed consent and clear and convincing evidence if there is presumptive intention of patient, in other words if there is physician orders for life-sustaining treatment, advance directives, or coincident statements of family of 2 or more, and third, decision-making should be executed for the best interest of patient if it is impossible to confirm the intention of patient. The purpose of life-sustaining treatment determination act is to protect human dignity. To realize this objective, we also have to pay attention to the assertion of slippery slope theory and strengthen social security system(especially, medical insurance system) lest patient's death should occur due to financial reasons. 연명의료중단등결정은 자기결정권과 국가의 생명보호의무가 충돌하는 문제이다. 삶의 마지막 단계에서 극심한 고통을 겪는 환자의 경우에 국가의 생명보호의무는 환자의 자기결정권보다 우위에 설 수 없다. 이에 관한 연명의료결정법에 대해서 문제점들이 지적되고 있다. 본고는 연명의료중단등결정의 헌법적 근거, 범위, 환자의 의사확인 등의 문제에 한정하여 살펴보았다. 연명의료중단등결정의 헌법적 근거에 관하여는 생명권, 자기결정권, 생명을 연장할 권리, 존엄한 삶의 권리, 신체불훼손권, 죽을 권리 등이 거론된다. 연명의료중단등결정의 헌법적 근거는 경우를 나누어 살펴보아야 한다. 첫째, 환자의 명시적 의사나 추정적 의사가 있는 경우에는 자기결정권(헌법 제10조)이 헌법적 근거이다. 둘째, 환자의 의사를 확인할 수 없는 경우에는 환자의 자기결정권 행사가 없기 때문에 자기결정권을 헌법적 근거로 보기는 어렵고, 모든 자료와 사정을 종합적으로 고려한 후 환자의 최선의 이익이라는 관점에 의거하여 연명의료중단등결정이 이행되어야 하고 이것은 인간의 존엄과 가치 실현으로서 헌법 제10조가 근거이다. 연명의료중단등결정의 범위에 관하여는, 먼저, 연명의료결정법은 대상 환자를 ‘임종 과정에 있는 환자’로 한정하였다. 이는 예컨대 말기환자의 자기결정권을 과도하게 제한하고 평등권(평등원칙)에 위반된다. 말기환자와 임종과정에 있는 환자 간을 구별하는 것이 어렵기 때문에 이는 과도한 자기결정권 제한이며, 또한 이러한 경우는 차별적 취급으로 인하여 관련 기본권에 대한 중대한 제한을 초래하게 되므로 평등심사에서 엄격심사 대상이다. 따라서 비례원칙에 따른 심사가 행해지면 적어도 침해최소성 원칙에 반한다. 다음에 연명의료결정법은 대상 연명의료를 이른바 특수연명의료(심폐소생 술, 혈액투석, 항암제투여, 인공호흡기착용)에 한정하였다. 예컨대 체외막 산호화장치 (ECMO)는 임종기환자에게 적용됨을 고려할 때, 이렇게 한정한 것도 과도한 자기결정 권제한이다. 환자의 의사확인에 관하여는 3가지로 나누어 살펴볼 수 있다. 첫째, 환자의 명시적 (현실적) 의사가 있는 경우이다. 이 경우에는 환자의 의사에 따라 연명의료중단등결정및 그 이행이 이루어지면 된다. 둘째, 환자의 추정적 의사가 있는 경우이다. 이는 연명 의료계획서, 사전연명의료의향서, 또는 환자가족 2명 이상의 일치하는 진술이 있는 경우들로서, 연명의료중단등결정 및 그 이행에는 ‘충분한 설명에 의한 동의’와 ‘명백하고 설득력 있는 증거’가 필요하다. 셋째, 환자의 의사를 확인할 수 없는 경우이다. 환자의 의사를 확인할 자료가 전혀 없는 경우에는 환자의 최선의 이익을 위하여 연명의료중단 등결정 및 그 이행이 이루어질 수 있다. 인간의 존엄과 가치의 보호라는 연명의료결정법의 목적이 실현되기 위해서는 ‘미끄 러운 비탈길’론이 경계하는 것에도 주의를 기울여야 하며. 더불어 경제적 이유 때문에 환자의 죽음이 초래되는 것을 방지하기 위해서는 사회보장제도(특히, 의료보험 제도) 가 더욱 강화되어야 한다.