영국과 호주의 금융 분쟁 조정 제도와 시사점

A financial conciliation scheme is believed to be an effective system to protect financial consumers who is in the weak position compared with a financial institution in terms of information asymmetry. Thus, it is necessary to reform the current financial conciliation system, which is operated by the financial supervisor, the Financial Supervisory Service. First, the independent financial ombudsman service authority needs to be established, separated from the Financial Supervisory Service. This argument is persuasive from the cases of the United Kingdom and Australia, which are establishing and operating the separate independent financial ombudsman service authorities. Second, the new scheme should be introduced that a financial institution should be binding on the determination suggested by the ombudsman service authority for the dispute cases with limited small amount if a financial consumer accepts such determination, because this scheme will significantly contribute to enhancing protection of financial consumers, considering the schemes operated by the United Kingdom and Australia. Third, it should be mandatory for a financial consumer to make a complaint to the concerned financial institution before he or she brings a financial dispute conciliation petition to an ombudsman service authority. Fourth, reasonable and minimum costs for financial dispute conciliation process should be imposed on petitioning financial consumers since it may restrain the abuse of a conciliation scheme. These recommendations are believed to contribute to enhancement of protecting financial consumers and finally development of the financial industry.