earticle

영어

This study evaluated the policy effectiveness of i) Public Notice of Critical Information, ii) Substantiation of Facts in Labeling and Advertising, iii) Temporary Injunctions, and iv) Advertisement Correcting Misrepresented Facts, which were main policies belonged to Fair Labeling and Advertising Act(hereinafter referred to as “FLA Act”), and analyzed related problems to draw plans for improving the efficiency. This study analyzed the collected qualitative data through one-on-one in-depth interviews. The data was collected by interviewing 42 experts personally, who were consumer policy and law experts, labeling and advertising staffs of corporations, and persons in charge of policies including public officials dealing with consumer policies at Korea Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter referred to as “KFTC”).
The results of the analysis are comprehensively summarized as follows.
In the analysis of one-on-one in-depth interviews regarding problems and difficulties of each policy, it was found that Public Notice of Critical Information had an inefficient presentation method, had a low policy perception level, and failed to reflect rapidly changing market environment and characteristics of each business type. As problems lied in Substantiation of Facts in Labeling and Advertising, it was found that did not have sufficient professional human resources of the implementation institution, the controversy over submitting period for substantiated data was not settled, general social expenses increased because of experiments only aiming at going through the regulation, substantiated data could led to a puffery advertisement, and unfair labeling and advertising among small-sized and medium-sized firms were hardly regulated. The biggest problem of Temporary Injunctions was that the policy was existed yet not implemented, and, before anything else, it was pointed out that the intention to use the system was weak. Practically, Temporary Injunctions were considered as structural risks because there were high chances of being sued by corporations through administrative lawsuits such as compensation claims. In addition, the deliberation procedure for Temporary Injunctions was not sufficiently quick. Lastly, it was mentioned that consumers hardly noticed whether a company conducted an advertisement correcting misrepresented facts or not and the current Advertisement Correcting Misrepresented Facts was a policy that was a mere formality.
Plans to improve the policy effectiveness based on evaluation results and problems found regarding the current FLA Act discussed through the study are as follows. To improve the effectiveness of Public Notice of Critical Information, it is needed to examine and inspect the implementation of Public Notice of Critical Information at markets and to constantly validate it. At the same time, it is required that KFTC, Korea Consumer Agency, consumer organizations make an effort together to inform the system to the public so that the perception level of the policy among corporations and consumers can be improved. For Substantiation of Facts in Labeling and Advertising, a cooperation system among government bodies should be strengthened so that the expertise which was pointed out as a problem during the implementation can be improved. In addition, constant validation of substantiated data is required to confirm whether data meets the designated criteria or not. To improve the effectiveness of Temporary Injunctions, the deliberation procedure should be simplified. It is requisite to ensure the quickness of the procedure for deliberating rapidly changing advertisements. For Advertisement Correcting Misrepresented Facts, the current decision-making criteria should be replaced by another one to implement the policy focusing on eliminating consumer-misleading effects.

한국어

본 연구는 표시광고규제 집행에서 나타나는 문제점을 분석하고 평가하여 실효성 제고방안을 도출하였다. 이를 위해 전문가들을 대상으로 심층면접법을 통해 수집한 질적자료를 분석하였다. 본 연구에서는 지금까지 비교적 적극적으로 관련사건들을 집행해온 부당한 표시광고행위 금지보다는 표시광고법에 고시나 운영지침이 별도로 제정되어 있지만 소극적인 제재조치를 취해온 표시광고법의 주요정책인 중요정보고시제도와 표시광고실증제도, 임시중지명령, 정정광고를 중심으로 살펴보았다.
표시광고규제의 문제점에 대해 네 가지 정책별로 분석한 결과, 중요정보고시제도는 ‘정보제공시 효율성 부족’, ‘정책 인지도 부족’, ‘시장환경 변화와 업종별 특성 미반영’, ‘전문적인 집행인력의 부족’이, 표시광고실증제도는 ‘전문적인 집행인력과 입증기관의 부족’, ‘실증자료 제출시기에 대한 합의 부족’, ‘규제통과만을 위한 실험으로 부대비용 증가’, ‘과장광고로 이어지는 부작용 발생’, ‘중소기업의 부당한 표시광고에 대한 규제 부재’가, 임시중지명령은 ‘심의절차상 신속성 부족’, ‘제도활용에 대한 의지 부족’, ‘행정소송 제기가능성으로 인한 구조적 위험’이, 정정광고는 ‘소비자에게 미치는 영향 미흡’, ‘정정광고 방법상의 효율성 부족’, ‘규제의 사각지대’가 문제점으로 도출되었다.
본 연구의 분석결과 제기된 표시광고규제에 대한 문제점을 해결하기 위해 현행 표시광고규제의 세부정책별로 실효성 제고방안을 도출하였다. 첫째, 시장에서 중요정보고시제도의 이행실태를 점검하고 감시하는 작업과 함께 지속적인 검증작업이 함께 이루어져야 하며, 기업과 소비자의 정책 인지도를 높이는 작업이 선행되어야 한다. 둘째, 표시광고실증제도의 정책집행에 있어 전문성을 높일 수 있도록 정부부처간 공조시스템을 강화해야 하며, 기준 부합여부를 확인하기 위해 실증자료에 대한 지속적인 검증과 관리가 무엇보다 중요하다. 셋째, 빠르게 변화하는 광고를 심의하기 위해서는 절차상의 신속성 확보가 필수이므로, 임시중지명령의 심의절차시스템을 간소화해야 한다. 넷째, 실효성이 낮은 정정광고를 개선하기 위해 소비자오도효과를 제거하는데 더 초점을 맞춰 정책을 집행할 수 있는 기반을 강구해야 하며, 정정광고를 소비자들이 잘 볼 수 있도록 하기 위해 다양한 방법을 모색해야 한다.