• Vending industry
• /
• v.10 no.2 s.31
• /
• pp.73-77
• /
• 2011

자동판매기 매매 관련 분쟁은 한국소비자단체협의회 자율분쟁조정위원회에서 조정을 한다 이 위원회는 사법적 판단과 중재결정이 갖는 단점을 보완하기 위한 사전적 분쟁 해결 장치로서, 분쟁의 당사자가 다른 당사자에 대해 승리를 얻은 게 아니라 서로가 수용할 수 있는 해결책을 발견하여 당사자 모두에게 이익(win-win)이 되는 방향으로 분쟁 해결을 도모하고 있다. 한마디로 합리적으로 분쟁을조정하고 있는 것이다. 과거 방문판매의 비중이 높았을 당시 자판기 관련 분쟁도 많이 발생했다. 특히 소비자들 기망하는 사기 판매도 많아 피해를 당한 억울한 사람들이 조정을 요청하기도 했다. 방문판매의 비중이 줄어들자고 고정 건수도 급감했다. 자판기가 실수요 위주로 재편이 되다보니 꼭 필요한 사람이 자판기를 구매하는 행태가 일반화된 것이다. 이렇게 절대 건수를 줄었지만 분쟁은 여전히 발생하고 있다. 자판기 구매자가 운영을 하다가 계약해지를 하고 싶은 쪽으로 마음이 바뀌는 경우가 가장 많다. 자판기 방문판매는 사업권유거래에 해당되어 소비자가 계약해지를 원하면 판매자는 수용을 해야 한다. 공정거래위원회와 한국자동판매기공업협회가 제정한 <자판기 매매 표준약관>을 기준으로 손율을 적용하고 있는데 계약해지 하는 입장에서 이 손율도 무척 아까울 수밖에 없다. 가능하면 손율을 많이 받으려는 판매자 입장과 적게 적용받으려는 소비자 입장의 중간에서 합리적인 조정활동이 이루어진다. 이 자율분쟁조정위원회에는 한국자동판매기공업협회 임원도 조정의원으로 참여하고 있다. 사업자와 소비자 상호 신뢰를 바탕으로 건전한 소비문화를 만들어 나가기 위해서는 다양한 분쟁 발생 사례에 대한 모범 조정 해결 사례를 명확히 이해하는 게 중요하다. 지금부터는 과연 어떠한 분쟁유형이 발생하고, 조정은 어떻게 이루어지고 있는지 사례들을 예시한다. 한국소비자단체협의회가 발간한 <2010년 자율분쟁조정위원회 조정사례집>에서 발췌를 했다. 이 사례들은 자판기 관련 분쟁에 있어 해결기준을 제시하는데 도움이 되리라 판단된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

In 2017, 1,252 cases of damages relief related to air passenger transport service were received by the Korea Consumer Agency, a 0.8% drop from 1,262 cases in 2016, the first decline since 2013. In 2017, 444 cases (35.4%) out of received cases of damages relief in the field of air passenger service received by the Korea Consumer Agency were agreed on, and out of cases that were not agreed on, the most number of 588 cases (47.0%) were concluded due to information provision and counseling, and 186 cases (14.9%) were applied to the mediation of the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. Major legislations that contain regulations for the damages relief and disputes resolution of air service consumers include the Aviation Business Act and the Consumer Fundamental Act, etc. The Aviation Business Act provides the establishment and implementation of damage relief procedure and handling plan, and the receiving and handling of request of damage relief by air transport businessman, and the notice of protection standard for air traffic users. The Consumer Fundamental Act provides the establishment and management of the consumer counseling organization, the damage relief by the Korea Consumer Agency, the consumer dispute mediation, and the enactment of the criteria for resolving consumer disputes. The procedures for damages relief of air service consumers include the receiving and handling of damages relief by air transport businessman, the counseling, and receiving and handling of damages relief by the Consumer Counseling Center, the advice of mutual agreement by the Korea Consumer Agency, and the dispute mediation system by the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. The current system of damage relief and dispute mediation for air service consumer have the problem in the exemption from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act, the problem in the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and the uppermost limit in procedure progress and completion of consumer dispute mediation under the Consumer Fundamental Act. Therefore, the improvement measurements of the relevant system for proper damage relief and smooth dispute mediation for air service consumer are to be suggested as follows: First is the maintenance of the relevant laws for damage relief of air service consumer. The exemption regulation from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act shall be revised. To enhance the structualization and expertise of the relevant regulation for protection and damage relief of air service consumer, it will be necessary to prepare the separate legislation similar to the US Federal Regulation 14 CFR and EU Regulation EC Regulation 261/2004. Second is the improvement of criteria for resolving air service consumer disputes. For this, it will be necessary to investigate whether the cause of occurrence of exemption reason was force majeure, and distinguish the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and revise the same as exemption reasons regulated under the air transport chapter of the Commercial Act and Montreal Convention 1999, and unify the compensation criteria for the nonfulfillment of transport that the substitute flight was provided and the delay of transport. Third is the reinforcement of information provision for damage relief of air service consumer. Aviation-related government agencies and concerned agencies should cooperate with airlines and airports to provide rapidly and clearly diverse information to the air traffic users, including laws and policies for damages relief of air service consumers. Fourth is the supplement to the effectiveness, etc. of consumer dispute mediation. If there is no sign of acceptance for dispute mediation, it is not fair to regard it as acceptance, therefore it will be necessary to add objection system. And if a dispute resolution is requested to another dispute settlement agency in addition to the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee, it is excluded from the damage relief package, but it should be allowed for the party to choose a mediation agency. It will be necessary to devise the institutional measures to increase the completion rate of mediation so that the consumer dispute can be resolved efficiently through the mediation. Fifth is the introduction of the air service consumer arbitration system. A measure to supplement the limitations of the consumer dispute mediation system is to introduce the consumer arbitration system, but there are two measurements which are the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Consumer Fundamental Act and the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The latter measurement is considered to be appropriate. In conclusion, as a policy task, the government should prepare laws and system to enhance the prevention and relief of damages and protection of the rights and interests of air service consumers, and establish and implement the consumer-centric policy for the advancement of air service.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

After the establishment of the Korean Product Liability Act, a new clause on the burden of proof has been added and is being revised to meet the purpose of consumer protection. Article 3(2) of the new clause stipulates a provision for estimating a causal relationship when proving indirect facts to alleviate burden of proof. While consumer rights are increasing and public attention is drawn to consumer issues, problems are still emerging. In order to solve the problem, the U.S. Product Liability Act, which has strong consumer rights, was examined to describe the direction in which Korea's Product Liability Act should proceed in terms of consumer protection. The results of the comparative analysis show that the US has expanded the concept of strict liability in terms of rigorous liability, consumer dispute resolution, provable possibility, and litigation accessibility, The consumer dispute settlement system has thoroughly protected consumers by operating educational and systemic consumer ADR system. As for the possibility of proving, Korea has three provenances, and the United States has one. In the United States, where consumer lawsuits are frequent, lawsuits are more accessible than those in Korea, where the party responsible for proving is turned into a manufacturer and responsible for proving the case. This study focuses on consumer protection and provides implications for Korean product liability law.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.413-421
• /
• 2017

4차 산업혁명과 관련하여 대두되는 핵심기술로 인공지능, 로봇, 빅데이터, 사물인터넷(IoT), 가상현실(VR)과 증강현실(AR), 자율주행자동차, 드론, 3D 프린팅, 블록체인 등을 들고 있다. 과거와 현재는 생산자가 최적의 비용으로 고성능 고품질 상품과 서비스를 제공했으나 4차 산업 혁명 시대는 소비자가 제품의 종류 및 특성, 생산 시점 등 전 과정에 관여하고 상품 자체보다 상품이 제공하는 가치를 중시하게 될 것으로 예상되고 있다. 이처럼 생산자 중심에서 소비자 중심으로 소비 트렌드가 변한 것은 AI, IoT, VR, 3D 프린팅 등 4차 산업혁명의 기술혁명이 지대한 기여를 했기 때문으로 볼 수 있다. 이처럼 다양한 제품과 서비스에서 새로운 유형의 소비자문제도 발생하고 기존의 소비자문제도 발생할 수 있으므로 이에 대한 체계적인 검토로 사전 예방적인 소비자정책과 사후구제의 소비자정책 모두 새롭게 정립해 두어야 한다. 사전예방적인 소비자정책으로는 (1) 위해방지, (2) 규격의 적정화, (3) 거래의 적정화, (4) 표시광고의 적정화, (5)소비자정보제공의 충실화 및 소비자능력의 향상을 위한 소비자교육의 강화, (6) 개인정보보호의 강화가 필요하다. 사후구제의 소비자정책으로는 (1) 소비자분쟁해결기준의 정비, (2) 피해구제 관련 법률의 제정이나 개정 등이 필요하다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Bio-Environment Control Conference
• /
• 2002.11a
• /
• pp.187-202
• /
• 2002

우리나라의 경량상토 시장은 앞으로도 지속적인 증가가 예상되는데 이와 더불어 분쟁 또한 당분간 증가될 것이다. 뿐만 아니라 상토로 인한 사고의 해결방안도 과거에는 농가와 제조회사의 양자간에 비공개로 진행되었으나 앞으로는 점차 공개적인 문제로 표면화될 것으로 생각된다. 때문에 상토문제에 대한 보다 객관적이고 구체적인 접근이 필요한 시점이다. 이를 위해서는 완전하지 않더라도 상토의 특성표기에 대한 기준을 조속히 마련하고 이를 관리하는 방안을 모색하여야 할 것이며, 이러한 관리는 규제보다는 인증제도와 같은 차원에서 권장하는 방향이 바람직할 것으로 생각된다. 이것은 업체의 난립으로 인한 농가의 피해를 줄이고, 상토의 품질을 높이며, 소비자가 상품에 대한 정보를 정확하게 습득할수 있는 계기가 될 것이다. 한편 육묘기술의 보급 면에서도 경량상토 활용시 주의할 점을 농가에게 충분히 지도하고, 유비상토 위주의 육묘를 추비관리 기술을 이용한 육묘로 한 차원 끌어 올릴 수 있는 기술지도도 병행되어야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Convergence Society for SMB
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.13-18
• /
• 2014

The usage rate of user due to advances in smartphone development is higher than the usage rate to use a PC. However, smartphone usage popularized research to protect sensitive information, such as smart phone users personal information, financial information is a small state. In this paper, we analyzed the various vulnerabilities in smartphone studies to date have been looking into the corresponding port smart consumer dispute resolution methods and criteria for smartphone security attack methods and analysis. In particular, the threat of such a network, malware, Peep attack of the security threats arising from the smartphone they can avoid or mitigate threats to minimize the smartphone security damage is done to the disclosure of personal information, such as direct damage or financial loss the analysis of that method.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.