지급결제시스템과 착오·사기이체 자금의 귀속

It is ironic that many disputes have arisen in relation to electronic money transfer, which requires clear legal relations. The lack of exploration to the nature of money or funds might have attributed to the problem. Money is either the value itself or its representation, and it is the thing to be owned. Money is supplied through a banking system including central bank, and the electronic funds transfer has become a universal means of payment since the establishment of payment settlement systems. The payment settlement system should be supported by a clear legal system, which should include procedures to properly handle the imperfection of the system. Unlike our Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code provides the legal relationship of the parties to the funds transfer. Funds transfer is made up of a series of transactions, subject to the rules of the general law, except as otherwise provided by the contracts or special law. If the funds transfer is made by mistake or fraud and the beneficiary’s account is set-off by receiving bank or attached by creditor process, the sender has only a claim of wrongful profits to the beneficiary, according courts’ decisions. With a deep-rooted notion that "the ownership to money exists in its possession" the courts have approached the issues only by the contract law. There are cases of lower courts and theories that have tried to correct these unfair consequences, and the Supreme Court has treated a set-off as abuse of set-off rights in a special circumstance. But this problem should fundamentally be resolved by recognizing the ownership of sender to the funds. There is no legal basis for the perception that the possession of money renders ownership, and the courts decisions on embezzlement cases can be understood by recognizing that the fund belongs to the sender.