특정금융정보법상 고객확인 재이행 미이행과 거래종료 의무에 대한 법리적 검토

This study legally examines the obligation of financial institutions to terminate transactions when Customer Due Diligence(CDD) is impossible due to a customer’s refusal to provide information, as stipulated in Article 5-2(4)(1) of the Act on Reporting and Use of Certain Financial Transaction Information(the “Act”). This paper addresses the key issues of whether a customer’s mere ‘silence’ in response to a periodic request for CDD re-verification – a common scenario in today’s prevalent non-face-to-face financial environment – can be interpreted as a ‘refusal to provide information’ that immediately warrants transaction termination. Given that financial transcations are fundamentally linked to the public’s property rights and credit, a strict and cautious interpretation of the requirements for such a severe measures is essential. This study argues that considering a customer’s silence as a refusal is not examines the legal validity of interpreting a customer’s ‘silence’ are a ‘refusal to provide information’ - a condition that triggers the transaction termination obligation for financial institutions under Article 5-2(4)(1) of the Act on Reporting and Use of Certain Financial Transaction Information(the “Act“). This issue is particularly pertinent in the prevalent non-face-to-face financial environment. Through an analysis of the civil law doctrine on implied manifestation of intent, relevant precedents, a systematic and teleological interpretation of the Act, and a comparative review with similar systems governing Virtual Asset Service Providers(VASPs) and prepaid electronic payment instruments, this paper argues that equating mere silence with an outright ’refusal’ has significant legal and systematic limitations. Furthermore, this study critically analyzes the strict authoritative interpretation of transaction termination by supervisory authorities. It points out that the authorities justify their position by exclusively citing high-risk scenarios involving suspected money laundering, while notably omitting low-risk cases such as routine 'periodic re-verification' mandated by the Enforcement Decree. This study contends that this selective justification paradoxically suggests that the authorities themselves do not view transaction termination as uniformly applicable to all instances of non-compliance, thereby supporting the paper's core thesis that regulation should be differentiated based on the 'reason' for the re-verification. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes four cumulative legal criteria for interpreting a customer's silence as a valid 'refusal': (i)clear and repeated notification from the financial institution; (ii)objective circumstances in which a response is reasonably expected; (iii)the customer's capacity to recognize the potential for transaction termination; and (iv)a consistent application of the measure as part of industry or internal practice. Moreover, recognizing that legal justification alone may be insufficient for consumer protection, the paper also proposes a supplementary three-step phased approach of practical restrictions: (i)providing a grace period with additional notifications; (ii)maintaining basic functions while restricting new financial product subscriptions; and (iii)limiting non-face-to-face services while preserving essential functions. The findings of this research provide a practical interpretive framework for financial institutions' internal policy-making, the establishment of standards for administrative guidance by supervisory authorities, and future legislative reform. Ultimately, this study aims to contribute to establishing a rational interpretive standard that achieves a balance between the public interest of anti-money laundering and the private interest of financial consumer protection.