게임 계정 거래의 법적 성질과 효력에 관한 검토

In the field of law related to game sevice, the major discussions have predominantly revolved around item transactions. This is not unrelated to the success of MMORPGs such as <Lineage> and <The Kingdom of the Winds> in the market from the 1990s to the 2000s. However, now in the game market, the importance of game account Real Money Trade(RMT) is being emphasized. This is because game account RMT are possible even when item RMT are technically impossible within the game system, ultimately offering an alternative to traditional item RMT. As a result, game account RMT are actively utilized as a replacement for conventional item RMT in numerous mobile games and other platforms where in-game item trading systems like auction houses or exchanges do not exist. Despite the fact that the terms of service of most game companies strictly prohibit account transfers, there has been limited prior research on the legal nature of game account RMT, which frequently occur in reality. Some sources argue that game account RMT should be regarded as a transfer of contracts. However, this study raises doubts about the perspective that game account RMT should be considered a transfer of contracts based on reasons such as the absence of explicit provisions indicating the transfer of the seller's rights to the buyer in the actual game account RMT. This study is paying attention to the fact that game users' personal information in the context of game account creation can either be closely linked to the account or completely unrelated to it. Thus, two distinct cases are identified: one where the game user as a creditor is identifiable, and the game service contract is concluded in a manner that allows the game company to clearly recognize the other party of the contract, and another case where the game user cannot be identified by the game company, and the game service contract is concluded in a manner where the game company does not necessarily need to identify the user. In the former case, such account RMT can be seen as a transfer of a special form of named claims, while in the latter case, it can be viewed as a transfer of special security-like claims. Ultimately, when considering game account RMT as transfers of named claims, despite the validity of the agreement, questions arise regarding the effectiveness of the transfer of named claims that violates the prohibition on transfers. On the other hand, if game account RMT are regarded as transfers of security-like claims, the account transfer prohibition clause is considered invalid. Thus, the game user can transfer their account to a third party, and consequently, the account is effectively transferred to the recipient. The types of account creation methods presented in this study alone may not sufficiently encompass the diverse aspects of game account RMT that occur in reality. However, through such discussions, it is hoped to move beyond the schematic perception that uniformly categorizes “gamers who have siganed the game service contracts” as named claimants or “game account RMT” as transfers of contracts. By considering the uniqueness of game account RMT and engaging in specific discussions with individual validity, it is anticipated that a more comprehensive understanding can be reached.