인터넷접속서비스 접속중단 및 품질하자에 관한 책임

The comparative research on the limitation of ISP(Internet Service Provider) liability for the unexpected Internet access interruption and the violation of the Internet access service warranty can provide a guideline for the court to judge ISP liability. The courts of many foreign countries pay more attention to process obligation rather than to result obligation when they review the Internet access service contracts. The reason why the courts focus on process obligation is that they do not want to lose their control. If the courts pay too much attention on the result obligation, technical aspects will be dominant elements in liability. In that case, not lawyers but engineers become dominant players in the court. The courts wish those things not to happen. Therefore, technical aspects will be considered not in result obligation but in process obligation, i.e. self-regulatory general agreements. In Korea, Ministry of Information and Communication will review the general agreements(standard forms) since jurisdiction of technical issues belong to MIC. The regulation system can work to even the imbalance between the parties during those review process. Although such methods may ensure a minimal degree of protection to the users, they do not, however, offer realistic ways of dealing with standard forms of imbalance on such contracts. As a consequence, the flexible legal standards by which Internet access providers should abide uniformly consist of the standard reasonable care and skill that in implied in contracts for the supply of a service. From the above view point, it will not be desirable to give ISPs too much burden in statutes. Process obligation should be focused in statutes. Therefore, the courts can review whether there is any fault or any violation of due care in carrying out ISP duty.