Along with the trend of active globalization today, more and more transactions between different countries take place where the mother tongue languages between the companies and consumers differ from each other, resulting in the preparation of agreements in a language that is other than the mother tongue language of the consumers. In particular, as the foreign companies without any separate entity in Korea usually induce the execution of agreements by referring to the clauses in their mother tongue languages, the question of whether such clauses in foreign languages may form a part of the agreement shall be given consideration, while another question rises when a foreigner executes an agreement in Korea, the language used in the clauses would not be the mother tongue for such party to the agreement, and hence there would be difficulties in easily understanding the content of such clauses. In this line, the issue of how to protect consumers from the clauses prepared in a language other than the mother tongue of such consumers shall be given consideration. In this study, the regulation by the Control Act on General Clauses of Korea shall be closely considered by referring to how such issues are dealt in Anglo-American law and German law. In Anglo-American law, there is a basic legal principle of respecting signature, whereas in principle, the customer trading with a company is deemed to bear the risk from the language in case of agreements in foreign languages which may have been evolved from the individualism that flows throughout Anglo-American law, although there are some exceptions. In comparison, the precedents before the enactment of the Control Act on General Clauses in Germany were composed in the direction of protecting its own nationals with the influence of nationalism. Yet, after the enactment of the Control Act on General Clauses, at the execution of agreement in accordance with Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Control Act on General Clauses, the direction has taken its turn to the issue of whether the designation of statement (or in some cases, notice) and the pre-requisite on the possibility of recognizing the content of the clauses is satisfied, resulting in the designation in accordance with the language in negotiation and the preparation of clauses in the same language was requested in principle. Provided however, while this legal principle is neutralized over the trades between commercial parties, such neutralization is limited to the use of foreign languages, and therefore, may be applied to all other cases. On the other hand, the Control Act on General Clauses of Korea does not provide any provisions over the control of clauses in foreign languages. However, in the revision of the Control Act on General Clauses on August 3, 2007, Article 3, Paragraph 1 was newly inserted, where it was provided that the clauses were mandated to be prepared in Korea, yet it is very difficult to consider this as a provision to regulate the clauses in foreign languages. Therefore, not only the clauses prepared by the foreign company in foreign languages, but whether the clauses prepared by the Korean domestic company in foreign language also forms a part of the agreement shall be determined by whether the requisites under Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Control Act on General Clauses are satisfied or not. Considering Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Control Act on General Clauses, in order to permit the clauses to form a part of an agreement, "the contents of the clauses shall be stated to the customers in generally expected method in accordance with the type of agreement", while "copies of the said clauses shall be provided to the customers in accordance with the requests of the customers" and "significant details shall be fully explained to the customers for their understanding." In relation to the statement of clauses, the term "statement" is provided where "the company shall permit his/her customers to know the content of the agreement in generally expected method, pursuant to the type of the agreement." Whereas the case where the clauses are stated in a language used in negotiation may be deemed to be stated in "generally expected method," the case where the clauses are stated in a language other than the language used in negotiation or agreement, it would be difficult to consider such statement in "generally expected method." However, if it involves a case where the customers can easily understand such language or where the statement involves the frequently used language as in the trading between commercial parties, such case would be seemed to have been stated in "generally expected method." The clauses may be deemed to form a part of the agreement when the obligations to explain such statement have been fully satisfied.

Along with the trend of active globalization today, more and more transactions between different countries take place where the mother tongue languages between the companies and consumers differ from each other, resulting in the preparation of agreements in a language that is other than the mother tongue language of the consumers. In particular, as the foreign companies without any separate entity in Korea usually induce the execution of agreements by referring to the clauses in their mother tongue languages, the question of whether such clauses in foreign languages may form a part of the agreement shall be given consideration, while another question rises when a foreigner executes an agreement in Korea, the language used in the clauses would not be the mother tongue for such party to the agreement, and hence there would be difficulties in easily understanding the content of such clauses. In this line, the issue of how to protect consumers from the clauses prepared in a language other than the mother tongue of such consumers shall be given consideration. In this study, the regulation by the Control Act on General Clauses of Korea shall be closely considered by referring to how such issues are dealt in Anglo-American law and German law. In Anglo-American law, there is a basic legal principle of respecting signature, whereas in principle, the customer trading with a company is deemed to bear the risk from the language in case of agreements in foreign languages which may have been evolved from the individualism that flows throughout Anglo-American law, although there are some exceptions. In comparison, the precedents before the enactment of the Control Act on General Clauses in Germany were composed in the direction of protecting its own nationals with the influence of nationalism. Yet, after the enactment of the Control Act on General Clauses, at the execution of agreement in accordance with Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Control Act on General Clauses, the direction has taken its turn to the issue of whether the designation of statement (or in some cases, notice) and the pre-requisite on the possibility of recognizing the content of the clauses is satisfied, resulting in the designation in accordance with the language in negotiation and the preparation of clauses in the same language was requested in principle. Provided however, while this legal principle is neutralized over the trades between commercial parties, such neutralization is limited to the use of foreign languages, and therefore, may be applied to all other cases. On the other hand, the Control Act on General Clauses of Korea does not provide any provisions over the control of clauses in foreign languages. However, in the revision of the Control Act on General Clauses on August 3, 2007, Article 3, Paragraph 1 was newly inserted, where it was provided that the clauses were mandated to be prepared in Korea, yet it is very difficult to consider this as a provision to regulate the clauses in foreign languages. Therefore, not only the clauses prepared by the foreign company in foreign languages, but whether the clauses prepared by the Korean domestic company in foreign language also forms a part of the agreement shall be determined by whether the requisites under Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Control Act on General Clauses are satisfied or not. Considering Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Control Act on General Clauses, in order to permit the clauses to form a part of an agreement, "the contents of the clauses shall be stated to the customers in generally expected method in accordance with the type of agreement", while "copies of the said clauses shall be provided to the customers in accordance with the requests of the customers" and "significant details shall be fully explained to the customers for their understanding." In relation to the statement of clauses, the term "statement" is provided where "the company shall permit his/her customers to know the content of the agreement in generally expected method, pursuant to the type of the agreement." Whereas the case where the clauses are stated in a language used in negotiation may be deemed to be stated in "generally expected method," the case where the clauses are stated in a language other than the language used in negotiation or agreement, it would be difficult to consider such statement in "generally expected method." However, if it involves a case where the customers can easily understand such language or where the statement involves the frequently used language as in the trading between commercial parties, such case would be seemed to have been stated in "generally expected method." The clauses may be deemed to form a part of the agreement when the obligations to explain such statement have been fully satisfied.