행정법적 관점에서 본 한국형 규제샌드박스 제도의 문제 = Issues of the Korean Regulatory Sandbox - Focusing on an Administrative Law Point of View

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Innovation often conflicts with regulation. Regulatory lag arises from these conflicts. These conflicts are resolved as innovations are incrementally accepted by regulations. However, the digitally-enabled innovation that causes rapid change requires an immediate regulatory response. A new regulatory strategy called as regulatory sandbox has emerged as a transition mechanism that can mediate such rapid innovation. In January 2019, Korea introduced the Korean Regulatory Sandbox(hier after “KRS”).
Regulatory sandbox is a safe harbor where consumers can be adequately protected while experimenting with innovative products, services, business models and transaction delivery. Regulatory sandbox is areas in which to trial innovation and regulation. The nature of regulatory sandbox can be seen as an experimental clause that provides a legal stepping stone to enable innovative new technology services while appropriately controlling risks.
From an administrative law point of view, Regulatory Fast Track, which constitutes regulatory sandbox, has the nature of a commitment under administrative law equivalent to issuing a Non-Action Letter. Provisional Approval(hier after “PA”) and Regulatory Exceptions for Demonstration(hier after “RED”) allow for regulatory exemption, so broad discretion can be granted to administrative agencies.
KRS has the following problems. First, KRS is spread by ministries in consideration of expertise in each field. PA and RED, which are practically the same, have different legal effects. Second, Innovation was actually delayed due to the absence of a deadline for clearing KRS’s procedures. Third, the market launch of new technology services was delayed in a situation where the interests and positions of each ministry conflicted in the stage of PA or RED, or in the process of post-legislative revision. Fourth, there are cases where an experiment that meets the purpose of the regulatory sandbox cannot be properly executed due to excessive additional clauses.
In order to maintain current KRS for each ministry, it is necessary to unify at least the legal requirements and effects of regulatory sandboxes by sector. Although PA and RED are integrated, it is sufficient to reflect the current functions related to safety verification in the design process of experimental conditions. The deadline for KRS needs to be determined within 30 days of application prescribed by the Financial Innovation Act. In the process of regulatory sandboxes, it is important to make substantial decisions by implementing all procedures set by the current system. Ultimately, it is desirable to integrate the committee for deliberation and resolution into the Office for Government Policy Coordination. Excessive additional clauses need to be comprehensively coordinated to the principle of proportionality in consideration of the purpose of the regulatory sandbox and its concerns.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이원우, "혁신과 규제 : 상호 갈등관계의법적 구조와 갈등해소를 위한 법리와 법적 수단" 법학연구소 9 (9): 7-29, 2016

2 박규홍, "한국형 규제샌드박스 제도의 도입경위 및 동향" 한국법제연구원 (63) : 2019

3 이원우, "통신시장규제에 있어서 전문통신규제기관과 일반경쟁규제기관의 관계" 행정법이론실무학회 14 : 319-346, 2005

4 김태오, "제4차 산업혁명의 견인을 위한 규제패러다임 모색 : 한국의 규제패러다임을 중심으로" 법학연구소 10 (10): 140-168, 2017

5 권기원, "정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화 등에 관한 특별법 일부개정법률안 검토보고서" 과학기술정보방송통신위원회 2018

6 이원우, "신융합산업 활성화를 위한 규제개혁입법의 현황과 과제" 법학연구소 12 (12): 137-153, 2019

7 최승필, "신성장분야 규제법제개선연구(Ⅰ), 제3편. 제4차 산업혁명에 따른 규제체제 및 거버넌스 개편 - 행정법이론을 중심으로 한 접근 -" 한국법제연구원 2017

8 "드디어 ‘ICT 혁신의 실험장’이 펼쳐졌다!"

9 김태오, "기술발전과 규율공백, 그리고 행정법의 대응에 대한 시론적 고찰 ― 정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화 등에 관한 특별법(소위 ICT 특별법)상 임시허가제도를 중심으로 ―" 행정법이론실무학회 (38) : 83-111, 2014

10 최승필, "금융규제행정의 공법적 해석 - 금융행정법의 정립을 위한 은행법상 쟁점 제기를 중심으로 -" 한국비교공법학회 17 (17): 301-331, 2016

11 김재광, "규제재설계에 따른 행정작용법적 함의― 포괄적 네거티브 규제체계를 중심으로 ―" 법학연구소 38 (38): 169-218, 2018

12 조용혁, "규제샌드박스 후속 법령정비 방안 연구" 한국법제연구원 2020

13 "규제샌드박스 시행 3년, 세상을바꾸다!"

14 국무조정실, "규제 샌드박스 제도의 이해"

15 이데일리, "국토부가 규제샌드박스를?..1년8개월째 막힌‘택시 물류’ 스타트업의 눈물"

16 이원우, "경제규제법론" 홍문사 2010

17 김원순, "「금융혁신지원 특별법」상 금융규제샌드박스 제도에 대한 소고(小考) - 혁신 친화적 금융규제체계의 정립 -" 법학연구소 22 (22): 27-75, 2021

18 전자신문, "‘화상투약기’ 결국 운영 중단···쓰리알코리아, 과기부 상대 행정소송"

19 중앙일보, "[팩플] “스타트업, 놀이터에 갇혔다” 규제 샌드박스, 3년의 그늘"

20 서울경제, "[사설] 규제 샌드박스도 사업 개시에 1년 걸려...최대한 앞당겨야"

21 OECD, "The role of sandboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age"

22 Ranchordás, Sofia, "The Whys and Woes of Experimental Legislation" 1 : 415-, 2013

23 Knight, Brian, "The Sandbox Paradox : Balancing The Need To Facilitate Innovation With The Risk Of Regulatory Privilege" 72 (72): 449-, 2020

24 Ranchordás, Sofia, "Sunset Clauses and Experimental Regulations : Blessing or Curse for Legal Certainty?" 36 : 28-, 2015

25 Krönke, Christoph, "Sandkastenspiele – “Regulatory Sandboxes” aus der Perspektive des Allegemeinen Verwaltungsrechts"

26 Allen, Hilary J., "Regulatory Sandboxes" 87 : 579-, 2019

27 Zetzsche, Dirk A., "Regulating a Revolution : From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation" 23 : 31-, 2017

28 Ranchordás, Sofia, "Innovation-Friendly Regulation: The Sunset of Regulation, The Sunset of Innovation" 55 : 201-, 2015

29 BMWi, "Freiräume für Innovationen - Das Handbuch für Reallabore"

30 "FCA Press Release, Financial Conduct Authority’s Regulatory Sandbox Opens to Applications"

31 Fetzer, Thomas, "4차산업혁명 시대의 기술혁신과 규제정책" 홍문사 2019

32 규제개혁위원회, "2020 규제개혁백서"