소멸시효완성채권의 불공정추심행위 규제에 관한 소고

Currently, some financial companies do not charge off some debts which are time barred under § 162 of the Korean Civil Code or § 64 of Korean Commercial Act, but rather sell them to third parties(hereinafter called as “debt buyer”), such as lenders or professional debt collectors. Then there are cases in which debt buyers buying such time-barred debts at a very low price are conducting unfair debt collection practices on those debts. In other words, the debt buyers induce the renunciation of the statutory profit of time-barred debt by allowing the debtor to make voluntary partial payment. They are also using common practice by saying “If you pay only a part, I will cancel the remaining debt”. They also using demanding procedure under § 462 of Code of Korean Civil Procedure to revive time-barred debt. In this regard, it is possible to interpret that the unfair collection of the time-barred debt is a false indication prohibited by § 11 of the "Korean Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act". However, even in this case, in case of collection of the claim through the lawsuit, if the defendant has not made affirmative defense of time-barred debt, it can not prevent the effect like the revival of the time-barred debt. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the US is experiencing a similar social phenomenon, and accordingly, various statutory solutions are being pursued by state legislatures. As a result of the comparative legal research, it is necessary (1) to make collectors to attach materials to decide whether the debt is time-barred or not, in the demanding procedure, (2) to oblige the debt collectors to actively investigate the completion of the statute of limitations, and to inform it to the debtors. It is also necessary to distinguish between a creditor and the debt buyer, and whether or not to impose more stringent requirements on the latter.