금융소비자 보호법의 최근 개정법률안에 관한 연구 - 금융교육과 분쟁해결을 중심으로 -

The Act on Financial Consumer Protection, enacted in 2020 and effective as of March 2021, has revealed significant structural deficiencies in the years since its implementation. The proliferation of digital financial services, an aging population, and a series of large-scale collective disputes — most notably the Lime Asset Management and Optimus Fund scandals — have exposed the inadequacy of the Act's provisions on financial education and the structural limitations inherent in its dispute resolution framework. Against this backdrop, the present study critically examines amendment bills introduced in the 21st and 22nd National Assemblies, diagnoses the structural flaws in the existing financial education and dispute resolution regimes, and proposes integrated reforms aimed at enhancing the practical effectiveness of financial consumer protection. During the 21st National Assembly, only one of thirty-five proposed bills was enacted, while key reform measures — including the introduction of one-sided binding effect (pyeonmyeonjok gusokryeok), the reversal of the burden of proof, and punitive damages — were allowed to lapse. As of August 2025, eighteen bills have been introduced in the 22nd National Assembly, six of which have completed committee review; nonetheless, substantive strengthening of financial consumer protection remains insufficient. The primary causes of this legislative stagnation are the entrenched interests of financial institutions and the absence of legislative momentum. While concerns regarding moral hazard have been raised in opposition to the introduction of one-sided binding effect, such concerns can be adequately addressed through the concurrent adoption of sanctions against bad-faith complaints and a phased implementation approach. Two core deficiencies characterize the current legal framework. First, Article 30 of the Act reduces financial education to a mere recommendation, resulting in a school-based financial education implementation rate of only 35.4% and a digital financial literacy score of 43 points - significantly below the OECD average of 55 points. This reflects a structural entrenchment of the "behavioral gap," whereby awareness fails to translate into practice, a problem unlikely to be remedied absent legal mandatoriness, a dedicated institutional body, and an AI-driven educational platform. Second, of the 259,938 financial complaints filed between 2017 and 2024, only 139 cases (0.05%) were referred to the Dispute Mediation Committee. The absence of one-sided binding effect means that when financial institutions reject mediation outcomes, consumers are effectively compelled to pursue costly litigation - a structural barrier that persists unaddressed. Through comparative analysis of major jurisdictions, the study identifies the institutional models most suitable for adoption in Korea. With respect to financial education, the Japanese model of operating an independent dedicated agency under integrated supervisory oversight is assessed as most appropriate, as it allows for the practical independence of the educational function while preserving the existing Financial Services Commission framework. With respect to dispute resolution, the optimal approach is to establish a single mediation body that is institutionally, personally, and materially independent from the Financial Supervisory Service, vested with one-sided binding effect, with reference to Japan's sector-specific designated dispute resolution organizations. The United Kingdom's fully separated model entails prohibitive transition costs, and the pluralistic American model is incompatible with Korea's administrative structure. The German model of cooperative financial education delivery through local governments is also identified as a valuable reference point. This study proposes the following six key reforms: (i) the legal mandatoriness of school-based financial education, to be delivered no fewer than twice per academic year; (ii) the establishment of an AI-driven personalized digital financial education platform; (iii) the phased introduction of one-sided binding effect, prioritizing small-amount and clear-cut cases; (iv) the creation of a collective dispute mediation mechanism applicable to cases involving fifty or more complainants; (v) the establishment of an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system; and (vi) the amendment of Article 9 of the Act to provide a legal basis for the participation of local governments in financial consumer protection.