한국에서 전자지급결제에 대한 법적 규제의 현황 - 핀테크와 규제완화의 관점에서 -

서희석 한국소비자법학회 2016 소비자법연구 Vol.2 No.2

'Electronic payments' means payment other than cash by electronic payment means. Recently, with the spread of mobile phones, electronic payment means (mobile payment means) utilizing mobile phones are also rapidly developing Fintech is, in short, the development of these mobile payment means. Mobile payment means are driving the development of fintech in that they are both means of access to system for electronic payments and a useful means of authenticating a person. In this paper, we examine the development process of electronic payment means by dividing into three types of ①account type, ② credit card type, and ③electronic money type, and examine the development of fintech in each case. Next, we review the current status of legal regulations on electronic payments and the trend of recent deregulation in Korea. I think the recent fintech craze can be understood as an attempt to integrate these three types of electronic payment means on mobile. Although various forms of fintech technology are emerging and we should watch the development process more in the future, we think that mobile payment means will eventually be understood by reducing to the above three categories. Therefore, understanding of the legal structure of electronic payment by the electronic payment means (①②③) is also essential for understanding the legal structure of mobile electronic payment. 전자지급결제는 요컨대 전자적인 방법에 의한 지급결제로서 현금 이외의 지급수단에 의해 지급결제가 이루어지는 것을 말한다. 최근에 스마트폰이 보급되면서 스마트폰을 활용한 전자지급수단(모바일 지급수단)도 급속도로 발전하고 있다. 핀테크(Fintech)는 한마디로 이러한 모바일 지급수단의 발전에 다름 아니다. 모바일 지급수단은 전자지급결제를 위한 시스템에의 접근매체이면서 동시에 본인인증을 위한 유용한 수단이 된다는 점에서 핀테크의 발전을 견인하고 있다. 본고에서는 전자지급수단의 발전과정을 ①계좌이체형, ②신용카드형, ③전자화폐형의 세 가지 유형으로 나누어 고찰하고 각각의 경우에 핀테크의 발전상황을 살펴보았다. 이어서 우리나라에서 전자지급결제에 대한 법적 규제의 현황 및 최근의 규제완화의 동향을 검토하였다. 필자는 최근의 핀테크 열풍은 위 세 가지 유형의 전자지급수단을 모바일 상에서 통합하고자 하는 시도로 이해할 수 있을 것이라고 생각한다. 다양한 형태의 핀테크 기술이 난립하고 있고 향후의 발전과정을 더 지켜보아야겠지만 모바일 지급수단도 결국은 위 세 가지 범주 내로 환원하여 파악할 수 있을 것으로 생각하기 때문이다. 따라서 이들 전자지급수단(①②③)에 의한 전자지급결제의 법적구조에 대한 이해가 모바일 전자지급결제의 법적 구조를 이해하는 데에도 필수적이다.

쌀 소득 직접지불제

사동천 ( Dong Cheon Sha ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.4

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) brought about changes in domestic support for the agriculture sector. The WTO mechanism aims to fully open the world trade market, and thus has led to opening the Korean market with the exception of rice. Because the agricultural sector is a fragile industry in which rice occupies about 80 per cent of its total agricultural sector, Korea received a grace to open its rice market upon the condition of importing defined quantities. This grace has allowed Korea to have an opportunity to strengthen the competitiveness of its rice industry. However, an ultimate solution is still vague. WTO rules require countries to remove protection policies for fragile industries, but allow the direct payment of subsidy including direct payments in the agriculture sector. The policy of direct payments for securing income from rice cultivation sets up a target price to attain the price competitiveness of the rice sector and covers 85% of the difference between the market and target prices. Direct payments have two different approaches, i.e. fixed direct payment providing farmers with 700,000 won per hectare before harvesting, and floating direct payment in accordance with the real yield of rice. However, the effect of the latter is very similar to the former as farmers are evenly paid for 80 kg (61 rice bags) per hectare though the actual amount of floating direct payment would depend on the rice price. As a result, this practice of floating direct payment caused farmers to face difficult situations when the yield per hectare is less or more than the defined amount. In turn, this approach that targets an equal distribution of benefits could distort the legislative purpose of direct payments. Considerable obstacles certainly exist in the effective implementation of the direct payment policies. In particular, there are great difficulties in measuring the actual yield of individual farmers. But such practice does not help strengthen the competitiveness of the agriculture sector. An alternative would be making floating direct payments work for rice yield surpassing the defined amount, i.e. 61 rice bags.

가장납입의 형사책임에 관한 비판적 고찰

이남윤,강동욱 아주대학교 법학연구소 2023 아주법학 Vol.17 No.2

2019. 8. 주가 대폭락 사태로 사회적 물의를 일으켰던 이른바 ‘신라젠 사건’ 피고인들에 대한 재판이 오랜 법정 공방 끝에 최근 유죄 확정되었다. 법원은 이 사건의 공소사실 중 신주인수권부사채 인수대금에 관한 가장납입의 점에 대하여 「특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률」상 배임죄로 유죄를 선고하였다. 그런데, 이 판결은 기존의 주금 가장납입에 대한 기존 판례와 논리적 모순이 될 뿐만 아니라 이른바 견금(見金) 행위로 일컬어지는 대금 납입에 대하여 지나치게 확장·유추 해석하여 이를 가장납입 행위로 단정 지음으로써 죄형법정주의 원칙에 반하고 있어 심각한 문제점을 내포하고 있다. 이러한 문제의 발단은 「상법」 제628조가 납입가장죄의 행위 태양에 관하여 ‘납입 또는 현물출자의 이행을 가장하는 행위’로 규정하고 있어 「상법」상 주금의 납입 가장행위에 관한 기준이 모호하고 포괄적인데다가 법원은 가장행위에 관하여 그 범위를 지나치게 확대해석함과 아울러 유추 적용함으로써 발생하게 되었다. 즉, 주금을 견금 방식으로 납입하는 경우 엄연히 정당한 주금 납입행위가 이루어지고, 주금납입 절차가 마무리된 후 적정한 회계처리를 거쳐 그 자금을 인출하는 등 그 과정에 있어서 독립적인 사실행위가 경료되고 있음에도 불구하고 법원은 그 일련의 과정 전체를 하나로 보아 주금납입을 무효라고 전제하고, 견금방식의 주금납입 행위를 무리하게 「상법」상 납입가장죄로 처벌하다 보니 정작 회사의 자금인출 행위에 대하여는 횡령 또는 배임죄로 처벌을 할 수 없게 되었다. 이로 인해 심각한 형량불균형의 문제가 발생하게 되었다. 그리고, 주금이 아닌 사채대금 납입에 관한 견금행위에 대하여 주금납입의 견금행위에 적용된 기준을 그대로 적용하여 처벌하려다 보니 이 사건 판결과 같은 모순된 결과에 이르게 되었다. 이러한 법원의 태도는 법적용에 있어서 지나친 확장해석을 통해 그 적용범위에 관한 불확정성을 증가시키는 결과를 초래하여 죄형법정주의 원칙에 반하고 있다. 이러한 모순된 현상을 바로잡기 위해 「상법」상의 납입가장죄에 관한 구성요건을 좀 더 구체화·명확화 할 필요가 있다. 그리고 법원은 현행 납입가장죄의 적용에 있어서 지나친 확대·유추 해석을 지양하고 합리적이고 통일적인 법령적용을 위해 진지한 검토와 연구를 통해 판례를 변경하여야 한다. The defendants in the so-called ‘Sillajen case’, which yielded social controversy due to the stock price crash in August 2019, were recently confirmed guilty after a trial that went through a long court battle. The court convicted the charge of the Fraudulent Payment of the underwriting price for bond with warrants among the facts charged in this case. and the criminal charges recognized by the court were breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. However, this judgment not only logically contradicts the existing precedent on fraudulent payment for stocks, but also excessively expands and analogies concept of the payment of the price, so-called the act of disguised payment, concluding the case as an act of fraudulent payment, being contrary to the Principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, and thereby, containing significant point in dispute. It may have been caused by the Article 628 of the Commercial Act stipulating the types of action of criminal liability for the Crime of Pretending to Pay as ‘an act of pretending to make a payment or in-kind contribution’ and, thereby, the concept of fraudulent payment of stocks being ambiguous and comprehensive under the 「Commercial Act」 as well as the court excessively expanding and analogizing the concept of fraudulent payment. In the case of paying for stocks by the method of disguise payment, each act of the process is being registered independently as the proper payment of stocks is made and, then, the funds are withdrawn through appropriate accounting processes after the payment procedure has been completed. However, as the court considered the entire processes as a single act and presupposed that the payment of stock is invalid, punishment for the act of paying stocks by the method of disguise payment is unreasonably applied in accordance with the criminal liability for the fraudulent payment under the 「Commercial Act」 and resultantly, it has become impossible to punish for the charge of withdrawing the company funds as a crime of embezzlement or breach of trust. As a result, the act of withdrawing company funds illegally could not be punished as a property crime, for which aggravated punishments are applied according to the amount of profit, but, rather, it is punished under the criminal liability for the fraudulent payment under the Commercial Act with a lower penalty, which has caused a significant imbalance in sentence. In addition, despite the disguised payment being for bond price rather than stocks, the punishment standards corresponding to the disguised payment for stocks were applied, leading to contradictory results as the judgment in this case. This attitude of the courts runs counter to the the Principle of “nulla poena sine lege” by overextending the application of the law and resulting in an increase in uncertainty about the scope of its application. In order to correct this contradiction, it is necessary to further specify and clarify the constitutional requirements for criminal liability for the fraudulent payment under the 「Commercial Act」. In addition, in applying the current criminal liability for the fraudulent payment, it is required for the court to refrain from excessive expansion and analogical interpretation, and revise precedents through earnest review and research for a reasonable and unified application of the law.

근로관계의 분쟁해결금과 소득세법상 사례금 - 대법원 2022. 3. 31. 선고 2018다286390 판결 등의 평석 및 실무상 시사점 -

김범준 법조협회 2022 法曹 Vol.71 No.3

소득세법은 기타소득의 하나로 사례금을 정하고 있다. 판례에 따르면, 사례금은 사무 처리 또는 역무 제공 등에 관하여 사례로서 지급된 돈이다. 한편 근로관계에 관한 분쟁이 화해권고결정 등 소송상 화해로 종결될 경우, 사용자가 근로자에게 분쟁해결금을 지급하기도 한다. 이러한 분쟁해결금이 사례금으로서 원천징수대상인지 여부가 근로자·사용자·과세관청 사이에서 자주 다투어졌다. 이 글에서는 위 쟁점에 관한 대법원 2022. 3. 31. 선고 2018다286390 판결(이하 ‘GE 판결’)을 평석하면서, 시사점을 분석하였다. 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016두48232 판결(이하 ‘엘지화학 판결’)과 대법원 2018. 7. 20. 선고 2016다17729 판결(이하 ‘에스티엑스엔진 판결’)은 근로관계의 분쟁해결금을 사례금으로 인정하였다. 반면 GE 판결과 대법원 2022. 3. 31. 선고 2018다237237 판결(이하 ‘한국퀄컴 판결’)은 사례금의 성격을 부인하였다. 두 판결 유형의 차이점은, 근로자와 사용자의 화해가 해고의 위법성을 전제한 것인지 여부이다. 엘지화학·에스티엑스엔진 판결의 화해는 해고의 적법성에 관한 내용을 담고 있었다. 적법하게 해고된 근로자에게 지급된 분쟁해결금은 신속·원만한 분쟁 해결의 대가, 즉 사례금으로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 GE·한국퀄컴 판결의 화해 내용은 해고의 위법성을 전제한 것이었고, 사용자는 부당해고에 따른 손해배상을 위하여 근로자에게 분쟁해결금을 지급하였다. 해고의 위법성 여부라는 관점에서 분쟁해결금의 법적 성격을 따진 것은 올바른 접근이다. 또한 GE·한국퀄컴 판결은 과세를 주장하는 자에게 사례금에 관한 주장·증명책임을 지웠다. 이는 과세처분취소소송의 증명책임 법리를 발전적으로 확대한 것이어서 타당하다. 다만 GE 판결의 판단 근거 가운데 화해권고결정의 창설적 효력에 관한 부분은 적절하지 않다. GE·한국퀄컴 판결을 계기로, 앞으로 분쟁해결금의 원천징수에 관한 소송에서 해고의 위법성 여부가 주요 쟁점으로 다루어지리라 생각한다. 근로자·사용자·법원은 근로관계에 관한 분쟁을 소송상 화해로 종결할 때, 분쟁해결금의 법적 성격에 관하여 협의 또는 심리할 필요가 있다. An honorarium is a payment given to an individual for her service, for which a payment is not required. The Income Tax Act (“ITA”) of Korea classifies an honorarium as ‘Other Income’, one of taxable income categories. Where an employer and an employee compromise on employment-related claims, the employer usually gives the employee a settlement payment. It is often disputed among employers, employees and tax authorities whether such payment falls under the concept of an honorarium and is subject to withholding tax. This article reviews the Supreme Court Ruling 2018Da286390, dated March 31, 2021 (“GE Ruling”) and analyzes a few issues on tax treatment of settlement payments for employment-based disputes. The Supreme Court Ruling 2016Du48232, dated October 27, 2016 (“LG Chemical Ruling”) and the Supreme Court Ruling 2016Da17729, dated July 20, 2018 (“STX Engine Ruling”) regarded a settlement payment as not only an honorarium but an object of withholding tax. On the other hand, the Supreme Court adjudicated that settlement payments were not subject to withholding tax since they were not an honorarium in the GE ruling as well as the Supreme Court Ruling 2018Da237237, dated March 31, 2022 (“Qualcomm Korea Ruling”). The key difference between the former rulings and the latter ones is whether the compromise between an employer and an employee was based on the illegality of dismissal from employment. The compromises of the LG Chemical Ruling and the STX Engine Ruling contained relevant clauses acknowledging disciplinary dismissals were legitimate. However, the employers and the employees of the GE Ruling as well as the Qualcomm Korea Ruling reached compromises based on the illegitimacy of the dismissal. In these cases, the settlement payments were paid to the employees by the employers for compensatory damages. It is a righteous approach for the Supreme Court to analyze the nature of a settlement payment from the standpoint of whether the dismissal was legitimate. Also, according to the GE Ruling and the Qualcomm Korea Ruling, any party who argues that settlement payments are subject to tax bears the burden of proof on whether the settlement payments are an honorarium. After the GE Ruling and the Qualcomm Korea Ruling, it is likely that the illegality of dismissal will be a key issue in disputes on withholding of settlement payments. It is necessary for employers and employees to discuss the nature of settlement payments and the illegitimacy of dismissal, when they compromise on employment-related litigations.

계약금 교부의 법적 성질 재검토

정상현 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2017 성균관법학 Vol.29 No.4

In Korea, general theories and the Supreme Court's ruling recognize the issuance of a down payment as a separate 'down payment contract' independent of the main contract such as a sale contract. Furthermore, it is controversial whether this down payment contract is contract for the need things or not. However, in personal opinion, this argument seems to be unnecessary in light of the interpretation of the Article 565 (1) of the Civil Code of Korea(CCK), the reality of real estate transactions and the will of contracting parties. Because the application of the Article 565 (1) of the CCK is only a legal effect of granting a down payment. Even if we do not accept such a contract as a down payment contract or a contract for the need things, it is a legal effect that occurs when all the down payment are issued. Therefore, I think that the down payment is a part of the whole purchase price, not more than that nor less than that. It is only the first payment that is paid in dividends, which has the special significance. The Article 565 (1) of the CCK stipulates only that "when the down payment is issued" at the time of contract, it is estimated to be a contract releasing fee, unless there is another agreement between the contracting parties. According to that article, the contracting parties can release the contract, by the grantor merely "abandons" the down payment, and by the recipient "repayment" the two times of down payment. In light of the principles of interpretation of the law for the application of these provisions, it is neither necessary nor permissible to expand, reduce or analogy beyond the interpretation of that text. In the above provisions, the down payment is based on the assumption that the down payment is all issued. It does not include that a part of the down payment is issued. The occurrence of the legal effect that the down payment is presumed as a contract releasing fee is only in accordance with the legal facts, namely the issuance of the down payment, presented by the above provisions. In addition to this, it is not necessary to have such a contract as a down payment contract or a contract on the need things. In a realistic transaction, the down payment also has the same meaning as there is no doubt that the buyer's mid payment or balance paid to the seller is a part of the total sales price. However, since the down payment is the first to be paid, it is only an estimated effect of the money for evidence of contracts and the contract releasing fee, or penalty and compensation for damages due to the separate agreement. Therefore, the issuance of the down payment is not necessarily regarded as an independent contract. In fact, the buyer will not be willing to conclude a 'contract' for the payment of the down payment separately from the sale contract, issuing a down payment to the seller. Rather, it is in reality that the parties have the intention that the contents of the sale contract shall have the intention of making a commitment to pay the whole sale price divided into down payment, intermediate payment and balanced payment. 계약금의 교부는 임대차계약이나 도급계약에서 빈번하게 사용되고 있으나 매매계약에서 가장 일반화되어 있다. 특히 부동산 매매계약에서는 매수인이 매매대금의 10% 정도를 계약금으로 수수하는 관행이 확립되어 있다. 계약금의 교부는 계약체결의 증거가 되기도 하고, 약정해제권을 유보하기도 하며, 별도의 특약으로 계약위반에 대한 제재로서 위약금의 역할을 하기도 한다. 계약금 교부에 대한 우리 민법학계와 판례의 일반적인 생각은 매매계약과 같은 주된 계약과 별도로 계약금의 교부를 위하여 체결되는 독립적 계약의 존재를 인정한다. 이를 널리 계약금계약이라고 하며, 그 법적 성격을 요물계약이라고 해석한다. 그리하여 계약금의 일부를 먼저 지급하고 잔액을 나중에 지급하기로 약정하거나 계약금 전부를 나중에 지급하기로 약정한 경우, 계약금계약은 성립하지 않았으므로 해약금 추정 규정인 민법 제565조 제1항에 따라 주된 계약을 해제할 수 없다고 한다. 이러한 태도는 민법 제565조 제1항의 해석이나 거래현실, 당사자의 의사에 비추어 타당하지 않으며 그 실익도 없다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 해약금 추정의 효력은 계약금 교부를 굳이 계약금계약이라든가 요물계약 내지 낙성계약이라 하지 않더라도, 주된 계약의 내용으로 계약금을 모두 교부하면 그 자체로서 발생하는 법률효과이기 때문이다. 계약금은 그 이상도 그 이하도 아닌 매매대금의 일부이고, 분할하여 지급되는 대금 중 가장 선행하는 것으로서 특별한 의미가 있을 뿐이다. 민법 제565조 제1항은 ‘계약 당시에’ 계약금이 ‘교부’된 경우 ‘당사자간에 다른 약정이 없는 한’ 해약금으로 추정하므로, 교부자는 이를 ‘포기’하고 수령자는 그 배액을 ‘상환’하여 매매계약을 해제할 수 있다고 규정한다. 법해석의 일반원칙에 따를 경우 위 규정의 적용을 위하여 문리해석을 넘는 확장, 축소, 유추 등을 해야 할 필요는 없다. 그리고 계약금의 교부는 계약금이 전부 교부되어야 함을 전제로 하는 것이지 일부가 교부되는 것을 포함하지는 않을 것이다. 해약금 추정의 법적 효과는 위 규정이 제시하고 있는 법률사실, 즉 계약금의 교부에 따른 것일 뿐이다. 그 외에 독립적인 ‘계약금계약’이라든가 계약금계약의 ‘성립’ 등은 불필요하고, 요물계약이나 낙성계약의 성질에 따른 논리구성 역시 무의미하다. 현실적인 거래에서 매수인이 매도인에게 지급하는 중도금이나 잔금이 대금의 일부라는 점에 의문이 없는 것처럼 계약금 역시 동일한 의미를 갖는다. 다만 계약금은 그 중 가장 먼저 지급되는 것으로 증약금, 해약금, 별도의 위약금약정과 그에 대한 손해배상액의 예정으로 추정되는 효과가 발생될 뿐이다. 그러므로 계약금의 교부를 반드시 주된 계약과 별도로 체결되는 ‘계약’으로 볼 필요는 없으며, 계약금계약이 ‘성립’되어야 해약금 추정의 효력이 발생되는 것도 아니다. 실제로 매수인이 매도인에게 계약금을 교부하면서 매매계약과 별도로 ‘계약금의 지급에 관한 계약’을 체결한다는 의사를 가지지는 않을 것이다. 오히려 매매계약의 내용으로 전체 매매대금을 계약금, 중도금, 잔금으로 분할하여 지급하기로 약정하는 정도의 의사를 갖는다고 해석하는 것이 현실에도 부합한다.

퇴직금분할약정의 법리에 대한 비판적 검토

유재신 노동법이론실무학회 2017 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.20

As the severance payment is imperative in our legal system, it is hardly appropriate to consider the severance payment by installment agreement, which is a contract for an employer to provide all or part of legal severance pay periodically along with the wage before the employee's retirement and for an employee not to ask for another severance pay after her retirement, to be valid. Before we start, it is much more reasonable to distinguish whether there's a severance payment by installment "agreement" between the employer and the employee firstly and, if we find the agreement is exist, to distinguish between the case where the "severance payment" is substantially a part of the wage and the case where the "severance payment" exists separately to decide whether the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the employer against the employee is admittable. In the latter case, assuming that we just follow present case law, there's no injustice when the severance pay already provided is the same as legal severance pay or less but unbearable injustice in terms of specific validity or labor protection when it exceeds legal severance pay because present cases impute the risk from severance payment by installment agreement which is mostly advantageous to employers to the employee, not the employer. To solve this problem, we should see that the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the employee can only be sustained as much as legal severance pay, not all the severance pay already provided in the case where the "severance payment" exists separately from the wage and the severance pay already provided exceeds legal severance pay on the grounds of "good faith doctrine(estoppel doctrine)" or "principle of equity", which means some change of present case law. Further, as for the setoff defense by an employer, it is not allowed when the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can not be sustained. And even in the case where the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is admittable, in my opinion, we should not allow the setoff defense by the employer considering the principle of complete payment wages and there's no compelling reason to allow exceptions for it even allowing for the logic of precedents. As the severance payment is imperative in our legal system, it is hardly appropriate to consider the severance payment by installment agreement, which is a contract for an employer to provide all or part of legal severance pay periodically along with the wage before the employee's retirement and for an employee not to ask for another severance pay after her retirement, to be valid. Before we start, it is much more reasonable to distinguish whether there's a severance payment by installment "agreement" between the employer and the employee firstly and, if we find the agreement is exist, to distinguish between the case where the "severance payment" is substantially a part of the wage and the case where the "severance payment" exists separately to decide whether the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the employer against the employee is admittable. In the latter case, assuming that we just follow present case law, there's no injustice when the severance pay already provided is the same as legal severance pay or less but unbearable injustice in terms of specific validity or labor protection when it exceeds legal severance pay because present cases impute the risk from severance payment by installment agreement which is mostly advantageous to employers to the employee, not the employer. To solve this problem, we should see that the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the employee can only be sustained as much as legal severance pay, not all the severance pay already provided in the case where the "severance payment" exists separately from the wage and the severance pay already provided exceeds legal severance pay on the grounds of "good faith doctrine(estoppel doctrine)" or "principle of equity", which means some change of present case law. Further, as for the setoff defense by an employer, it is not allowed when the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can not be sustained. And even in the case where the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is admittable, in my opinion, we should not allow the setoff defense by the employer considering the principle of complete payment wages and there's no compelling reason to allow exceptions for it even allowing for the logic of precedents.

간편결제서비스에 관한 연구 — 전자지급결제대행(PG)을 중심으로 —

김홍식 한국경영법률학회 2020 經營法律 Vol.30 No.4

Naver Pay or Kakao Pay is a new form of payment method, and various payment methods such as credit cards, account transfers are registered in advance, and simple payment services are provided by entering the simple payment password. Simple payment service refers to a service that reduces the process of entering credit card information and public certificates every time and then makes payments easily through simple authentication processes such as password and fingerprint recognition. Such simple payment services have grown nearly three times in the last three years in terms of the number of use and the amount of payments. Among them, the payment amount using Payment Gateway(PG) was the largest, and the payment method of registering a credit card was the most frequently used. The emergence of simple payment services, inherently implies conflicts between the development of innovative IT technologies and legal domains involved. In this paper, legal issues related to the simple payment service, in which PG accounts for the largest portion of the simple payment service with pre-registered credit card as a means of payment will be examined. Also the legal relationship between parties related to the simple payment service and the responsibilities of PG will be examined . Under the Credit Finance Business Act, PG are not liable for defective credit card transactions to credit card companies in principle. However, PG will only bear the obligation to notify consumers who are credit card members and to cancel orders and process refunds for members. In addition, Under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, PG are responsible as electronic financial operators to consumers who are users of electronic financial transactions. If an online shopping mall can be a franchise under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, PG may be held responsible for the defective credit card transaction. 네이버페이나 카카오페이는 새로운 형태의 지급결제수단이며, 신용카드, 계좌이체, 선불지급수단 등 다양한 지급결제수단을 미리 등록하여 실제 결제시에는 간편결제비밀번호의 입력만으로 결제를 할 수 있는 간편결제서비스를 제공하고 있다. 간편결제서비스란 모바일이나 PC를 이용한 기존의 카드 기반 결제과정에서 신용카드 정보 및 공인인증서나 OTP를 매번 입력하여야 했던 과정을 축소하여 모바일에 카드 정보를 한번만 입력해 두고 이후 결제시 비밀번호, 지문인식 등 간단한 인증과정을 통해 간편하게 결제가 이루어지는 서비스를 지칭한다. 이러한 간편결제서비스는 그 이용 건수 및 결제금액의 측면에서 최근 3년 새 약 3배 가까이 성장한 것으로 지속적인 증가추세에 있다. 그중에서 전자지급결제대행업(PG : Payment Gateway)를 이용한 결제금액이 가장 비중이 크며, 지급수단으로는 신용카드를 등록하여 결제한 방식이 가장 많이 사용되었다. 이러한 간편결제서비스와 같은 새로운 모바일지급수단의 출현에는 혁신적인 IT기술의 발전과 관련법영역간의 상충이 본질적으로 내포되어 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 간편결제서비스중에서 가장 비중을 많이 차지하는 경우인 전자지급결제대행업자(PG업자)가 미리 등록한 신용카드를 결제수단으로 제공하는 간편결제서비스와 관련된 법적논점을 전반적으로 살펴보고, 간편결제서비스관련 당사자간 법률관계와 이에 따른 전자지급결제대행업자의 책임에 관하여 자세히 검토해 보았다. PG업자는 여신전문금융업법상 신용카드 가맹점에 해당되기에 신용카드사에 대하여는 하자있는 카드거래에 대한 책임은 원칙적으로 부담하지 않으며, 다만 신용카드 회원인 소비자에 대하여 온라인 쇼핑몰의 상호/주소 공지의무와 회원의 주문취소 및 환불처리에 대한 의무만 부담하게 된다. 그리고 전자금융거래법상 PG업자는 전자금융업자로 분류되어 전자금융거래의 이용자인 소비자의 간편결제서비스 이용과 관련된 금융사고 발생시 일정한 요건이 부합되는 경우에는 소비자에 대하여 전자금융업자로서의 책임을 부담하게 되며, 또한 해석상 온라인 쇼핑몰이 전자금융거래법상 가맹점에 해당될 수 있다면 PG업자에게는 이러한 가맹점에 대하여 하자있는 카드거래에 대한 책임이 부과될 수 있다.

AUTOMATED PAYMENT, FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING AND A PUBLIC POLICY CONUNDRUM

Sandra Awanis,Ahmad Daryanto 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Introduction Credit card issuers across countries now offer automated payment facilities online to ensure that consumers commit to regular repayments. However, insofar it is unclear whether repayment automation leads to better financial decisions. With an average of $880 billion of revolving debt in the U.S., it is no surprise that policy developers seek to remedy the global credit card debt problem. The current research makes three contributions. First, our study raises public awareness about the negative effects of automated payments on credit card repayments. Contrary to the established assumptions that autopay helps consumers to manage consumer finances (e.g., www.directdebit.co.uk), our experiment unanimously show that autopay facilities reduce the amount of credit card repayment. Second, our study offers a contemporary and relevant insight into the consumers’ online credit card management, which is distinct from its offline counterpart. Specifically, in an online environment, consumers can process information on their credit card and saving almost simultaneously. For example, some consumers may access credit and saving accounts in different browser tabs, while others who own credit and saving accounts from the same institutions may be able to access both accounts within the same webpage. Finally, our study enriches understanding of individual differences in repayment decisions behaviour. Our results indicate that certain attitudinal tendencies to credit cards heightens the effect of autopay on repayment, but this effect is intensified when the context involves those with low level of saving. Conceptual Development The Psychology of Automated Payment Credit cardholders often set up automatic monthly payments to avoid missed payments and incur penalties. The freedom and convenience associated with online banking means that credit card consumers can easily set up automated payment at an amount that they feel comfortable. Consumers can choose any amount ranging from the minimum amount, which is typically is set at 2% of the overall balance, to the full credit card balance. Prior research on goal pursuits suggests that people divide goals into subtasks to experience the motivational benefits of greater self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In this case, the use of automated repayment provides a sense of goal progress as it allows repayments to be made in smaller instalments, which in turn, bolsters one’s perception of self-efficacy with respect to the overall goal (i.e. total credit card balance). However, a boosted sense of achievement resulting from subgoal completion may lead consumers to undermine absolute progress towards the overall goal. As such, the subgoal – rather than the superordinate goal – becomes the most salient point of reference for individuals’ motivations towards goal pursuit (Besharat, Carrillat, & Ladik, 2014). Unfortunately, the focus on subgoals can lead to a sense of complacency and reduced persistence towards superordinate goal (Gal & McShane, 2012). Therefore, we expect that the presence of automated repayment cause consumers to focus on the more manageable subgoals (i.e., monthly repayments) rather than the unwieldy superordinate goals (i.e., total credit card balance). In addition, we theorise that the convenience of automated payment removes the salience of the “pain of paying” (Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998) away from future credit card repayment. A key characteristic of credit card expenses is that the “pain” of payment, which provides a nudge for self-reflection and intervention from overspending, is held at bay until the end of the month. However, with automated payment, such deliberation point is subverted to a one-time deliberation. Because automated payment shifts attention away from subordinate goals and reduces the complexity of monthly deliberation, we expect that consumers making automated credit card repayments will commit to less amount of repayment than those making non-automated payments. H1: Automated payment leads to lower repayment amount compared to regular non-automated payment. The Psychology of Credit and Saving Accounts The default setup of many credit card accounts tends to demarcate credit and debit (saving) accounts. For example, consumers may have separate login accounts to access information about their credit and debit accounts. Such financial accounts separation means that consumers also categorise debt and saving into separate mental accounts (Hershfield, Sussman, O’Brien, & Bryan, 2015). Previous research suggests that such erroneous categorization of overall wealth can lead consumers to make financially detrimental decisions, such as taking on high-interest rate debt, while simultaneously holding money in low-interest rate saving account (Sussman & O’Brien, 2015). The absence of overall wealth information in credit card accounts and statements means that people are likely to focus their attention to arbitrary information that may misshape one’s perception of wealth. We therefore expect that the absence of accurate information of financial capability in the form of saving account balance will lead consumers to anchor their repayment decisions on perceived wealth informed by the available credit limit. In contrast, the presence of saving information in credit card account has a direct influence over credit card repayment decision because it represents an accurate picture of one’s overall wealth. Thus, higher (lower) balance of saving account will lead to higher (lower) credit card repayment. We expect that the positive effect of credit and saving account on repayment transcend over the effect of repayment mode (i.e. automated versus non-automated repayment) as it reconciles the consumers’ saving and debt mental accounts. Hence: H2: The amount in saving account influences the amount of credit card repayment. Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Credit Card Debts Prior studies regularly report that credit card as a payment mechanism yield psychological effect on the consumers’ evaluation at the point of purchase. In comparison to more transparent and vivid payment methods such as cash, credit card payments causes consumers to trivialise past payment (Soman, 2001), reduces self-control (Chatterjee & Rose, 2012) and overvalue past income (Soman & Cheema, 2002). However, other studies suggest that consumers exhibit different individual differences in susceptibility to credit card’s psychological effects (Awanis & Cui, 2014; Rick, Cryder, & Loewenstein, 2008). For example, those characterised as spendthrifts, instant gratifiers, low in self-regulation and financial sophistication are likely to emphasise on the bright side of credit cards (i.e., spending/lifestyle facilitator). Consequently, these consumers tend to overspend with their credit cards. We expect that such individual differences in credit card mentality will reflect on the consumers’ repayment habits. Thus, we expect a negative relationship between individual-level susceptibility to credit card debts and repayment amounts. In addition, we also expect that individual differences in credit card debts susceptibility will moderate the relationship between automated payment and repayment decision (H1). Indeed, those who advocate the bright side of credit card (high susceptibility) may appreciate, or even celebrate automated payment facilities, as it makes credit card experience more convenient and worry-free. To this end, we suggest that individual-level differences in susceptibility to credit card debts will moderate the relationship between automated payment and repayment amounts. Furthermore, we propose that such moderated relationship is stronger and consequently more problematic among those with constrained resources (low saving). Specifically, cash-strapped consumers are at risk of placing greater emphasis on the bright side of credit cards to make up for their lack of financial resources. The combined effects of individual susceptibility to credit card effects and the misguided promise of automated payment are likely to lead these individuals to a path of revolving debt. Meanwhile, those with sufficient resources are unlikely to suffer the same extent of indebtedness due to their wealth. Thus, we hypothesise that the moderating effect of individual susceptibility to credit card debts on the relationship between automated payment and repayment amount will differ across those with low and high saving: H3: In low saving conditions, susceptibility to credit card debts moderates the relationship between automated payment and the amount of credit card repayment; in high saving no such moderation effect is expected. Method We conducted a 5 (current account balance) x 2 (payment mode) between-subject experiment involving a hypothetical scenario and repayment decisions. Current account balance has five levels: no account balance information (served as a control condition), $500, $1000, $2000 and $3000 and payment has two levels: autopay and regular payment. Across all experimental conditions, the minimum required payment and credit card balance were kept constant. In total, eight hundreds and nine US credit card users (458 women, 11% were aged 18-44 years, 42% from 25-34 years, 24% from 35-44 years and 23% were aged more than 45 years) were drawn from Amazon Mechanical Turk and were paid $.35 each for participation. Participants were asked to imagine that they had just logged onto their online account where they could see their online credit card statement with a balance of $1.937.28 and a minimum payment of ?35.78. This minimum required payment was equal to two-percent of balance. The amount of credit card balance reflects the U.S. average of consumer credit card balance (Salisbury, 2014). Participants were told that they also saw their current accounts (i.e., the amount of money in their debit cards) and were also told that they do not have any other forms of financial obligations. Participants were instructed to indicate the amount of credit card repayment they would make in the light of the information provided in the online statement. We expect that the consumers’ understanding of compounding interest will affect their credit card repayment decisions. Therefore, we controlled for the participants’ financial knowledge, measured using three quiz-style questions following Navarro-Martinez, et al. (2011). Scores were calculated by tabulating the number of correct answers (one score for a right answer and zero for a wrong answer) and points are summed across the three questions to arrive at a single knowledge score. We measure participants’ susceptibility to credit cards effect (SCCE) by a 12-items scale adapted from Awanis and Cui (2014) (Cronbach’s α=0.89). The scale has been found to be invariant across cultures e.g., UK and Singapore. The scale items used a 7-point Likert format (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Results and discussions A 5 (account balance) x 2 (payment mode) ANOVA revealed a main effect of current account balance, F(4,755)=61.50, p<0.001, η2=.246, such that higher current account will lead to higher repayment (Mcontrol=$960.64 (SD=53.91), M1=$181.85 (SD=58.08), M2=$390.55 (SD=53.78), M3=$1075.07 (SD=54.71), M4=$1138.45 (SD=51.84), see Figure 1). The ANOVA design also revealed a main effect of autopay vs regular payment mode, F(1,755)=28.44, p<0.001, η2=.04, such that the autopay (Mautopay=619.39, SD=35.17) brought about lower payments than the regular mode (MRegular=879.24, SD=33.72). Therefore, H1 and H2 are supported. Interaction effect of payment mode and susceptibility within low versus high account balance. We then examined the interaction effect of payment mode and susceptibility to credit card debt within three conditions: account balance is lower than the credit balance (high saving) and account balance is higher than the credit balance, and a control condition. We, therefore, recode the five levels of account balance experimental conditions into a dummy variable with three levels: 0 for control, 1 for low account balance and 2 for high account balance. The experimental conditions with account balance lower than the credit balance (i.e., $500 and $1000) is coded as 1 and those with account balance higher than the credit balance is coded as 2, no account balance information presented (i.e., control condition) is coded as 0. We centred the means of SCCE and use a PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) to estimate the interaction effect. Within low balance: the moderated regression results revealed the main effect of autopay (b=-233.23, t=-7.46, p=<0.001), main effect of SCCE (b=-43.318, t=13.04, p=<0.001) and interaction effect between autopay and SCCE (b=-81.48, t=25.64, p=<0.001) on credit card repayment. Simple slope analysis reveals that at there were significant differences in the repayment amount between low vs. high SCCE for regular participants (b=-81.70, t==-5.55, p<0.001). In contrast, for autopay participants, the effect of SCCE on credit card repayment is not significant (b=-.21, t=-.01, n.s). Within high balance: the moderated regression results revealed the main effect of autopay (b=-317.39, t=-3.57, p=<0.001) and main effect of SCCE (b=-135.10, t=-3.88, p=<0.001) on credit card repayment. The interaction effect between autopay and SCCE on credit card repayment is not significant p>.5).Within control: the moderated regression results revealed the main effect of autopay (b=-301.69, t=-2.13, p=<0.001) and main effect of SCCE (b=-156.24, t=-2.58, p=<0.001). The interaction effect between autopay and SCCE is not significant p>.5). Figure 2 shows the interaction effect discussed above for the two account balance experimental conditions: low account balance (panel A), high account balance (panel B). Patterns in control condition is similar to panel B. Based on these results, H3 is supported. General Discussion Automated payment is not as virtuous as many have assumed. In fact, autopay facilities encourage may reduce consumers’ long-term goal of debt repayment by craftily shifting attention away from superordinate goals to the more manageable and rewarding subgoals. We recommend that policy developers and practitioners should exercise caution in promoting the use of automated payment to enhance financial management. Such recommendations should come with a set of actionable guides to reduce debt levels in shorter time. Our findings also suggest that separation of many credit and debit accounts means that people tend to categorize debt and saving into separate mental accounts. This affects people’s ability to make informed repayment decisions, which should reflect one’s real ability to pay. Interventions that help people to accurately measure their real financial capabilities are expected to raise their repayment decisions. Therefore, we suggest that policy makers and practitioners reconcile credit card and saving account in a single online platform to enhance the consumers’ repayment decision.

Informal payments for health care services: The case of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine

Tetiana Stepurko,Milena Pavlova,Irena Gryga,Liubove Murauskiene,Wim Groot 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2015 Journal of Eurasian Studies Vol.6 No.1

This paper analyzes patterns of tips, gifts and bribes paid by patients for health care services. Informal payments are more prevalent in developing and transition countries because the economic and socio-cultural environment is more conducive to “gifts”-exchange as a means to maintain the underfunded health care system. Moreover, most Eastern European countries have experienced wider socio-political reforms, which have also affected health care service provision and have led to a greater reliance on informal patient payments in the access and quality assurance of health care services. This study provides evidence on public attitudes and recent experiences with informal patient payments in post-Soviet and post-communist countries, namely in Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland. The empirical results suggest a lower share of informal patient payments as well as a prevalence of more negative attitudes towards informal patient payments in Poland compared to Lithuania and Ukraine. Informal payments are more common and more expensive for in-patient health care services in contrast to out-patient ones in all countries. Still, in post-Soviet Lithuania and Ukraine informal patient payments co-exist with other types of patient payments such as quasi-formal patient payments. When clear regulation of the basic package and formal patient charges is lacking, patients experience a mixture of payment obligations. About three quarters of the respondents support the statement that informal patient payments should be eradicated. It is proposed therefore that governments of the countries should meet public expectations and implement a strategy to deal with informal patient payments. In all three countries, informal patient payments (both “bribes and fees”) are a symptom of system failure and provide a means for patients to obtain the health care they desire, which the government is not able to guarantee. Suitable regulations coupled with (dis)incentives may decrease the level of informal payments for health care provision.

해약금으로 추정되는 계약금의 일부지급과 계약의 해제에 관한 판결 재검토

박석일,정상현 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2019 성균관법학 Vol.31 No.4

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, for a long time, have concluded that one of the parties who enter into a main contract issued a down payment to the other party, the issuance of down payment is a kind of contract. That is to say, the Korean Supreme Court recognize a separate 'down payment contract' independent of the main contract such as a sale contract. Furthermore, it is controversial whether this down payment contract is contract for the need things or not. However, in personal opinion, this argument seems to be unnecessary in light of the interpretation of the Article 565 (1) of the Civil Code of Korea(CCK), the reality of real transactions and the will of contracting parties. Even if we do not accept such a contract as a down payment contract or a contract for the need things, it is a legal effect that occurs when all the down payment are issued. Therefore, I think that the down payment is a part of the whole purchase price, not more than that nor less than that. It is only the first payment that is paid in dividends, which has the special significance. In a realistic transaction, the down payment also has the same meaning as there is no doubt that the buyer's mid payment or balance paid to the seller is a part of the total sales price. However, since the down payment is the first to be paid, it is only an estimated effect of the money for evidence of contracts and the contract releasing fee, or penalty and compensation for damages due to the separate agreement. Therefore, the issuance of the down payment is not necessarily regarded as an independent contract. In fact, the buyer will not be willing to conclude a 'contract' for the payment of the down payment separately from the sale contract, issuing a down payment to the seller. Rather, it is in reality that the parties have the intention that the contents of the sale contract shall have the intention of making a commitment to pay the whole sale price divided into down payment, intermediate payment and balanced payment. As a result, the Supreme Court of Korea has shown contradictory conclusions about the award of the down payment in 2008 and 2015. In these judicial precedents, even though the down payment was not paid at all or was partially paid, Supreme Court presumed that a down payment contract was concluded. This is the ruling that there is a theoretical contradiction. 우리 대법원은 계약금의 교부를 주된 계약과 별도로 체결되는 ‘종된 계약’이라 하고, 이를 널리 ‘계약금계약’이라고 하며, 그 법적 성격을 ‘요물계약’이라고 해석한다. 물론 당사자가 계약금의 액수나 지급시기 및 지급방식에 관하여 명시적으로 주된 계약과 별도의 약정을 하는 경우에는 이러한 해석도 무방하다. 그러나 통상 계약금은 주된 계약의 내용으로 그 액수 등을 정하고 그에 따라 교부될 뿐이다. 이에 대한 대법원의 태도는 계약금을 해약금으로 추정하는 민법 제565조 제1항의 규정 해석이나 실제 거래의 현실, 당사자의 계약금 교부의사에 비추어 불필요한 개념을 인정한 결과라고 생각된다. 왜냐하면 해약금 추정의 효력은 계약금 교부를 굳이 계약금계약이라든가 요물계약 내지 낙성계약이라 하지 않더라도, 주된 계약의 내용으로 계약금을 모두 교부하면 그 자체로서 발생하는 법률효과이기 때문이다. 위 규정에 따라 ‘계약 당시에’ 계약금이 ‘교부’되면 ‘당사자간에 다른 약정이 없는 한’ 해약금으로 추정되어, 교부자는 이를 ‘포기’하고 수령자는 그 배액을 ‘상환’하여 계약을 해제할 수 있다. 계약금은 매매대금의 일부이고, 분할하여 지급되는 대금 중 가장 선행하는 것으로서 특별한 의미가 있을 뿐이다. 이러한 입장에서 계약금에 관한 대법원의 태도를 살펴보면, 계약금의 교부를 통한 주된 계약의 구속력 확보와 해약금 추정력의 인정범위를 일관하여 견지하지 못한 것으로 생각된다. 이 상황은 이 글의 평석대상인 2008년 판례와 2015년 판례가 등장하면서 더욱 심화된 것으로 보인다. 그 이전의 판결들은 계약금 교부를 주된 계약과 별도의 ‘계약금계약’으로 파악하고, 이를 ‘요물계약’으로 이해하는 확고한 태도를 유지하였다. 그러나 2008년 계약금이 전혀 교부되지 않은 사례, 2015년 계약금 중 극히 일부만 교부된 사례에서, 해약금 추정에 따른 주된 계약의 해제를 인정하게 되면 계약의 구속력을 매우 후퇴시키는 결론에 이를 것이라는 우려가 예상되었다. 이에 대법원은 기본원칙으로 계약금계약의 요물계약설을 유지하면서, 추가적이거나 가정적인 내용의 판시를 통하여 낙성계약설의 일면을 드러내었다. 즉 2008년 판례에서는 아직 지급하지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 불이행하면 계약금계약 자체를 해제할 수 있다는 법정해제(민법 제544조) 가능성을 나타내었다. 이것은 계약금계약의 요물성을 전제하면서도, 계약금이 전혀 지급되지 않은 상태에서 계약금계약은 성립되었고 그 효력으로 아직 지급되지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 인정함으로써, 낙성계약설의 논리를 그대로 드러낸 것이다. 또한 2015년 판결에서도 계약금을 일부만 지급한 경우에는 계약금계약이 성립되지 않았으므로 이를 해제할 수 없다고 전제하면서, ‘해제할 수 있다고 하더라도’ 해약금의 기준은 실제 지급된 계약금이 아니라 약정 계약금이라는 가정적 결론을 도출하였다. 이 역시 계약금이 일부 지급된 경우에는 요물계약설에 의할 경우 해제할 수 없다는 결론과 낙성계약설에 의할 경우 주된 계약을 해제할 수 있다는 결론이 동시에 존재하는 모순적 상황을 드러낸 것이었다.