초록 열기/닫기 버튼
2019. 2.부터 2020.6.까지 독일 연방카르텔청, 뒤셀도르프 고등법원, 연방대법원을 거쳐 치열하게 심사된 이른바 Facebook 사건에서는 시장지배적 지위의 사업자가 개인정보 보호에 관한 법령을 위반하거나 기타의 방법으로 개인정보 자기결정권을 침해하는 내용의 이용약관을 근거로 이용자의 개인정보를 처리하는 행위가 시장지배적 지위의 남용, 구체적으로 착취남용 행위에 해당할 수 있는지 여부가 문제되었다. 최종적으로 연방대법원은 문제의 개인정보처리가 이용약관에 기초한 것이므로 GDPR 보다는 약관 심사의 관점에서 검토하여야 한다고 전제하고 시장지배적 지위 남용과 그러한 약관의 작성 사이의 인과관계를 인정하였다. 이를 우리나라에 적용시키면, 공정거래법상 시장지배적 지위남용 중 소비자이익 저해행위 해당 여부 뿐 아니라 불공정거래행위 및 약관규제법 위반 여부가 검토될 수 있다. 시장지배적 지위 남용행위 중 소비자이익 저해행위와 관련하여 개인정보 보호에 관한 이익도 고려될 수 있을 것이나, 현저성과 관련하여 독일의 논의를 그대로 적용할 수 있을지 여부가 불투명하다. 불공정거래행위 중 끼워팔기와 관련하여서는 끼워팔기의 요건을 충족할 수 있을지 여부와 경쟁제한성 유무와 관련하여 문제가 있으나, 이익제공강요행위의 성립 가능성은 진지하게 검토할 가치가 있어 보인다. 또한, 약관규제법 제6조의 불공정약관으로서 해당 약관을 무효화하는 방안도 고려 가능할 것으로 보인다. 이와 같이 약관규제법이 문제되는 부분이 바로 공정거래법상 쟁점과 개인정보 보호법적 쟁점이 맞닿는 지점이다. 즉 이용약관에 근거를 둠으로써 계약의 내용으로 편입되고, 따라서 문언상 서비스 제공을 위하여 필요한 개인정보 처리가 개인정보 보호법의 관련 규정에도 불구하고 선택동의 사항이 될 수 있는지, 될 수 있다면 어떠한 기준 하에서 그러한지의 문제가 그것이다. 이와 관련하여 개인정보 보호위원회가 제시한 합리적으로 예상 가능한 서비스 제공을 위하여 반드시 필요와 같은 기준은 유효한 판단기준을 제시하여 주지 못하므로 약관규제법 제6조의 법리를 적용하여 다양한 이익형량을 수행할 필요가 있다는 것이 필자의 견해이다. 다만, 입법론적으로 개인정보 보호법 제15조 제1항 제6호의 '정당한 이익'의 적용 범위의 확대가 필수적이다.
This article reviews the decisions made by German Federal Cartel Office, Düsseldorf High Court and Federal Court of Justice of Germany(“BGH”) regarding the alledged abuse of market dominant position by Facebook in 2019 and 2020. These decisions, above all, deal with the issue of whether and to what extent infringement of personal data and the subsequent violation of the General Data Protection Regulation by Facebook which had a dominant position in social network service market in Germany can be considered as abuse of its dominant position, especially exploitative abuse. Based on the analysis of these decisions and their respective rationales in detail, the author will review whether and how the rationale of these decisions would be applicable in the context of Korean laws, especially the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”), the Act on the Regulations of Terms and Conditions(“ARTC”) and the Personal Information Protection Act(“PIPA”). Under the MRFTA, it is questionable whether the processing of personal data by Facebook at issue (“Use of Off-Facebook Data”) can be viewed as an abuse of market dominant position because Korean Court and the Fair Trace Commission have not clearly adopted the criteria which was used to acknowledge exploitative abuse by the BGH. However, it may be worth examining whether the Use of Off-Facebook Data can be viewed as unfair trade practice under the MRFTA. Also, the standard terms and conditions of Facebook on which the Use of Off-Facebook Data was based should be examined from the perspective of ARTC. From the perspective of data protection, the author will explore the possible legal basis of the Use of Off-Facebook Data under the PIPA, i.e. ‘data processing necessary for the performance of contract between the data subject and Facebook’ and then discuss the problems and questions that could arise when such legal basis applies to the Use of Off-Facebook Data, especially when the purpose of such use is to provide users with customized services, especially behavioural advertising or recommendation services.This article reviews the decisions made by German Federal Cartel Office, Düsseldorf High Court and Federal Court of Justice of Germany(“BGH”) regarding the alledged abuse of market dominant position by Facebook in 2019 and 2020. These decisions, above all, deal with the issue of whether and to what extent infringement of personal data and the subsequent violation of the General Data Protection Regulation by Facebook which had a dominant position in social network service market in Germany can be considered as abuse of its dominant position, especially exploitative abuse. Based on the analysis of these decisions and their respective rationales in detail, the author will review whether and how the rationale of these decisions would be applicable in the context of Korean laws, especially the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”), the Act on the Regulations of Terms and Conditions(“ARTC”) and the Personal Information Protection Act(“PIPA”). Under the MRFTA, it is questionable whether the processing of personal data by Facebook at issue (“Use of Off-Facebook Data”) can be viewed as an abuse of market dominant position because Korean Court and the Fair Trace Commission have not clearly adopted the criteria which was used to acknowledge exploitative abuse by the BGH. However, it may be worth examining whether the Use of Off-Facebook Data can be viewed as unfair trade practice under the MRFTA. Also, the standard terms and conditions of Facebook on which the Use of Off-Facebook Data was based should be examined from the perspective of ARTC. From the perspective of data protection, the author will explore the possible legal basis of the Use of Off-Facebook Data under the PIPA, i.e. ‘data processing necessary for the performance of contract between the data subject and Facebook’ and then discuss the problems and questions that could arise when such legal basis applies to the Use of Off-Facebook Data, especially when the purpose of such use is to provide users with customized services, especially behavioural advertising or recommendation services.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
abuse of dominant position, fair trade act, unfair method of competition, regulation of standard contract, Facebook, personal data, personal data protection, Personal Information Protection Act, Bundeskartellamt, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, Bundesgerichtshof, Personal Information Protection Committee, required consent, optional consent, online platform
