빅테크에 대한 국제사법의 대응 －구글 합의관할 사건 판결에 대한 비판으로부터－

Unlike the dynamic structure of the parties in the conventional international transaction dispute, Big Tech, the one side in the platform environment, has more power than any sovereign state in fact to the extent that it exerts considerable influence in international politics, but the other side, as an ordinary individual user, is not comparable to Big Tech. It has such a weak power. There is a marked difference in power between the two. In addition, in the two-sided market connected mainly by platform companies, there are transactions between platform companies and multiple parties for each market, and the contracts are standardized and depend on typical terms and conditions. In relation to dispute resolution procedures such as the application of jurisdiction or applicable law, of course, there are exceptions to the terms and conditions, but they generally include regulations that are to be governed by the jurisdiction or law of the specific country where the Big Tech headquarters are located. In this process, individual users or small businesses, who are clearly one party to the international transaction contract, are at a very disadvantaged position in the choice of jurisdiction and applicable law. However, Korean courts tend to understand that it is unreasonable to ignore the dispute resolution procedures set by Big Tech to protect users spread across many countries. In this paper, I critically consider the judgment that the domestic court has no jurisdiction by recognizing the ‘Written Agreement’ in Article 29 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which was made in the form of an electronic document among the contents of the Google Terms of Service. I will point out the irrationality that occurs when the theory applicable to international trade disputes related to trade in goods and services is applied to international trade disputes in a platform environment with different contexts. Next, I will emphasize the need for private international law to respond more actively through a few cases of international transaction disputes that may arise in the platform environment. The platform domain is breaking down the traditional concept of sovereignty that presupposes borders and people. Big Tech, which has a stronger influence than most countries, is expanding its power in the platform area to the extent that it is called ‘Platform Imperialism’. In this process, judicial sovereignty is being dismantled, and the tendency of ‘commodification of laws’ is getting stronger. It concludes by calling for an active response of private international law as part of a holistic response to big tech and platform imperialism based on a sufficient understanding of the platform environment operated by Big Tech.