전자지급결제대행업(PG) 관련 규율체계 변경 추진에 따른 법적 이슈와 과제

The push to amend the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business in response to the TMON-WeMakePrice incident and e-commerce/PG regulatory issues has raised concerns about the simultaneous introduction of excessive regulations. Since Electronic Payment Settlement Agency Services (PGs) are subject to criminal penalties for unregistered operations, it is necessary to clearly define the concept and requirements of PG services based on the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring clear compliance obligations. Small and medium-sized e-commerce operators that also engage in PG operations may fall into a regulatory blind spot, as they might not be subject to either the Electronic Financial Transactions Act or the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business. Therefore, a thorough review must be conducted to clarify the scope of these laws and prevent the emergence of regulatory gaps or arbitrage. A uniform shortening of settlement cycles could weaken PGs’ ability to manage payment risks and respond to consumer refunds and cancellations, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the regulation, which must be approached cautiously. Excessive protection of settlement funds through preferential claims could also infringe on the rights of general creditors, so it would be advisable to apply such measures minimally and only to small individual businesses and micro-merchants. If the assignment and collateralization of settlement funds are prohibited by law, it could prevent third-party payments or advance settlement loans through receivables transfers, necessitating appropriate countermeasures. Even for providers of telecommunications billing services under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, who effectively perform PG functions, the recent regulatory reforms should be applied consistently to avoid regulatory arbitrage between domestic and foreign operators, necessitating stronger extraterritorial application. Similarly, given the similarities in payment and settlement processes, payment processing businesses under the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act should also have their regulatory requirements aligned with the Electronic Financial Transactions Act to ensure fairness in regulation. Furthermore, clear loss-sharing agreements between payment processors and card companies must be established to prepare for future similar incidents, requiring institutional improvements. In the context of MyData advancement, the data transmission obligations of sub-merchants should also be clearly defined, and measures must be developed to eliminate concerns over the potential infringement of trade secrets.