콘텐츠이용자보호지침에서의 이용자보호에 관한 연구

The content user protection guidelines were enacted in accordance with the Content Industry Promotion Act to protect users in content transactions, and have been amended four times since they were enacted in 2008. But in terms of specific content, it is regulated differently from the contents of the Contents Industry Promotion Act and the Electronic Commerce Act, which causes the problem of the effectiveness of the guidelines and infringement of user rights. This is summarized and presented as follows. First, the guidelines limit the scope to users who are consumers. However, users are not limited to consumers under the Content Industry Promotion Act. Second, among the informations to be provided by content providers, the contents of the revised e-commerce law regarding the payment payment deposit system are not reflected. Second, information on the Escrow to be provided by content providers is different from the contents of the amended Electronic Commerce Act. Third, the Electronic Commerce Act, not the Content Industry Promotion Act, is applied to the exclusion measures such as withdrawal of an offer. Therefore, the content regulated in the guidelines is a violation of the Electronic Commerce Act. In addition, consumer rights and interests are violated as consumers are unable to withdraw their offers even though they are not excluded. Fourth, the guidelines regulates the deletion of online content downloaded as one of the effects of withdrawal of subscription and regulates that operators should refund within three business days from the date of withdrawal of an offer or the content should be returned. In addition, if the payment refund is delayed, the delayed interest rate is 12% per year. These contents are different from the contents of the Electronic Commerce Act and the Content Industry Promotion Act. Accordingly, the guidelines cause problems of violating higher laws and infringement of consumer rights. Fifth, the guidelines impose the burden of proof on content providers in relation to the termination of content transactions. But except for continuous transactions under the Door-to-Door Sales Act, this contents are different from the basic principle of certification responsibility under the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the guidelines regulates violations of the contents of related laws such as the Electronic Commerce Act and the Content Industry Promotion Act, so they do not protect user rights but infringe on excessive business obligations without reasonable grounds. Therefore, the guidelines should be amened in accordance with the contents of related laws.