UNCITRAL 가이드와 클라우드 표준계약서 비교검토

The Internet was originally conceived with the goal of creating a computing network that works even in emergencies. Since then, computers have exploded around the world, and most of the world has been able to connect to servers. It even reached the cloud to utilize even idle computers. The Korean government has been trying to industrially foster cloud computing for more than a decade. The original name of the Cloud Act was a law on ʻuser protectionʼ, and there should be no lack of user protection. In such a case, the user may not bear a large monitoring cost. It will then be possible to reach the stage of large-scale use by the general public and various individuals or groups or corporations. And the government will be able to inculturize the cloud industry or foster leading and competitive cloud-up companies. In short, user protection is not just a sub-priority to be supplemented during use. User protection should have been placed at the top priority, which will be the premise of everything. Korea's legal system or legal culture, which focuses on regulation and management, establishes barriers to entry by giving and receiving mutual territories between the government and industry. This is to prevent development possible only when it is formed as a liberal market in order to advance cloud computing services. Tech Giants in the United States are active in the free market economy and have the competitiveness achieved in the adjacent Internet domain as a weapon. They are already dominating the cloud market. In order to overcome this problem, other regions or countries are trying to get their own companies to lead the cloud commercialization of the public sector so that they can acquire the competitiveness of the cloud industry. The US is working in the same direction. In the case of Korea, it has been a long time since Korea responded with the same purpose (nurturing domestic companies through open public sector cloud). Nevertheless, for the above reasons, the results are not clear. Comparing the guide of UNCITRAL with the domestic standard contract, it can be seen at a glance that there is a significant gap between the two in considering user protection. Even Korea showed excellent and active participation in the working group in the process of deriving the UNCITRAL model law. Regarding the contradictory situation in the domestic legal system or legal culture, Korea has not been able to improve it. Korea had a background that prevented it from focusing on ʻuser protectionʼ in the cloud sector. In other words, in Korea, there were practices that regarded industrial development as everything and focused only on industry. It may be that the main cast has been inverted. The fact that there is a large gap in the level of user protection between the UNCITRAL guide and the cloud standard agreement is a serious difference even in terms of the size of the article. We should first focus on raising the level of user protection and providing practical relief. Only if we do that, I think that Korea will be able to get the big players in the cloud industry that it wants.