소비자보호법상 권리매매에서 청약철회에 관한 연구

Consumer Protection Acts which aim to protect consumers in consumer contracts should not limit objects. However, the Consumer Basic Law and the Special Transaction Consumer Protection 3 Acts restrict the object. In particular, it does not specify rights or specifies only some rights. In addition, the Special Transactions Consumer Protection 3 Acts contain rights in the service. Therefore, different objects are regulated equally. As a result, it is insufficient to protect consumers and regulations on operators are also unfair because it does not regulate consumer contracts according to the nature of rights. The problems are summarized as follows. First, applying the provisions on service to the right makes the withdrawal right of consumers unfavorable. If the transfer of rights is initiated, consumer cannot withdraw. Second, if the consumer withdraws, the transferred rights do not have to be returned. The starting date for the refund period is the day the consumer sent the withdrawal. As a result, a business operator who refunds the money will not be given back the right. And even though the operator does not know the fact of withdrawal, it can bear the delay interest. The reason for thses problems is that the rights are included in the service and the regulations on the service are applied unconditionally to the rights. Therefore, the Special Transaction Consumer Protection 3 Acts should not include the rights in the service but should be regulated separately.