티메프 사태의 진단과 처방: 전자상거래법 개정안 비판과 전자지급결제대행업자(PG) 중심의 해결책 제언

The “TMon-WeMakePrice Incident” of July 2024 (hereafter the “TMEF incident”) exposed the structural risks within the e-commerce market. To prevent a recurrence, several amendments to the E-commerce Act have been proposed to impose "legislated settlement deadlines" and "segregation of funds" on online platforms. This paper critically examines whether these proposed amendments can serve as a fundamental solution to the TMEF incident. First, regarding the “legislation of settlement deadlines,” this paper points out that the cause of the TMEF incident was not the "long settlement periods" but the "misappropriation of sales proceeds" by the parent company. Therefore, it argues that the rigid imposition of deadlines fails to address the essence of the problem and may, instead, undermine the market's autonomous self-correcting function and conflict with the existing legal framework, such as the Fair Trade Act. It also contends that foreign legislative precedents are difficult to apply in support of the proposed amendment's validity, given their different regulatory targets and principles. Next, concerning the “segregation of funds,” the paper argues that while the principle is sound in its aim to prevent misappropriation, imposing this duty on Payment Gateways (PGs) rather than on online platforms is a more efficient and fundamental solution. As the amendment to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (which is already nearing legislative approval) stipulates a separate management duty for PGs, amending the E-commerce Act would only create unnecessary and overlapping regulation. In conclusion, this paper emphasizes that to prevent a recurrence of the TMEF incident, the most rational and efficient approach is not to amend the E-commerce Act, but to amend the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. This would reform the payment structure itself, requiring PGs to separately manage sales proceeds and settle them directly with sellers.