무역상무연구 (THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW)

  • 제77권
  • /
  • Pages.69-89
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1229-2036(pISSN)
한국무역상무학회 (The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law)
권호 표지

미국 소비자금융보호위원회(CFPB)의 2015년 「중재연구 의회보고서」의 내용과 시사점

Contents and Its Implications of U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s 2015 「Arbitration Studies: Report to Congress」

  • 안건형 (대전대학교 국제통상학과)
  • 투고 : 2018.01.31
  • 심사 : 2018.02.21
  • 발행 : 2018.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 이병준, "약관을 통한 소비자중재합의와 그 유효성", 중재연구 제24권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2014.
  2. 이종구, "미국에서의 소비자거래약관의 중재조항과 집단소송(집단중재)금지에 관한 연구 - 미국연방대법원의 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception 판결을 중심으로", 기업법연구 통권 제51호, 한국기업법학회, 2012.
  3. 정선주, "소비자중재에서 소비자보호의 문제", 서울대학교 법학 제49권 제1호, 서울대학교 법학연구소, 2008.
  4. 하충룡, "소비자중재합의의 미국계약법상 항변", 중재연구 제20권 제2호, 한국중재학회, 2010.
  5. 하충룡, "소비자 중재합의의 부합계약성에 관한 검토 - 미국법을 중심으로", 중재연구 제22권 제3호, 한국중재학회, 2012.
  6. 하충룡, "The Legal Characteristics of Consumer Arbitration Clause and Defenses in the U.S. Contract Laws", 중재연구 제23권 제3호, 한국중재학회, 2013.
  7. Bennett, S. and Calloway, D., "A Closer Look at the Raging Consumer Arbitration Debate", Consumer, May/October 2010.
  8. Horn, R., "Policy Watch: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Consumer Research: Mission Accomplished?", Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 36(1), American Marketing Association, 2017.
  9. Johnston, J. and Zywicki, T., "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Study: A Summary and Critique", Banking & Financial Services Policy Repot, Vol. 35 No. 5, 2016.
  10. Niemann, J., "CFPB set to ban arbitration clauses in contracts", NW Financial Review, 2016.
  11. Parasharami, A., "What's Next for Arbitration?: Conception's Treatment in the Lower Courts and the CFPB's Potential Regulation of Arbitration", Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, Vol. 26 No. 3, 2013.
  12. Pomerantz, L., "Consumer Arbitration: Pre-Dispute Resolution Clauses and Class Action Waivers", Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol. 71 No. 2, 2016.
  13. Scheuneman, C. and Pierce, A., "CFPB's Report to Congress: To Arbitrate Consumer Financial Services or Not", Banking & Financial Services Policy Report, Vol. 34 No. 6, 2015.
  14. CFPB, Comments of U.S. Chamber of Commerce 9 (No. CFPB-2012-0017) June 22, 2012.
  15. CFPB, Arbitration Study Preliminary Results, 2013.
  16. CFPB, Arbitration Study: Report to Congress, pursuant to Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act $\S$ 1028(a), 2015.
  17. FTC, "Repairing a Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration", 2010.
  18. US Department of the Treasury, Limiting Consumer Choice, Expanding Costly Litigation: An Analysis of the CFPB Arbitration Rule, 2017.
  19. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 563 U.S. 321 (2011).
  20. Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 (2006).
  21. Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 113P.3d 1100, 1110(2005).
  22. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 25 (1991).
  23. Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452-453 (2003).
  24. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983).
  25. Preston v. Ferrer , 552 U.S. 346 (2008).
  26. State of Minnesota v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., et al., No. 27-CV-09-18550 (Minn. 4th Dist. Ct., 4th Jud. Dist. 2009).