The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) reported to the Presidential Committee on Policy Planning about the introduction of the 'unilateral binding' system, a presidential election pledge by President Lee Jae-myung. Currently, the FSS's dispute resolution proposal is merely 'advisory', meaning that if a financial consumer agrees but the financial institution rejects it, it becomes invalid. The core of this system is to provide binding power to dispute resolution decisions, thereby obligating financial institutions to comply without exception.
While it is explained as a measure to strengthen consumer protection, there is considerable opposition due to concerns that it infringes on the right to file claims and could be exploited by black consumers. This was reviewed during both the Moon Jae-in administration and the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, which is also the reason why actual legal amendments have not been made.
According to the financial sector on the 25th, the FSS reported the plan to introduce unilateral binding authority for dispute resolution during the previous day's report to the Presidential Committee on Policy Planning. The FSS is said to have expressed its opposition to the government's organizational restructuring plan, which involves separating its internal organization, the Financial Consumer Protection Office (FCP), indicating its intention to enhance the capabilities of the FCP.
Unilateral binding authority refers to granting the effectiveness of 'judicial reconciliation' if a complainant accepts the FSS's dispute resolution proposal, regardless of whether the financial institution accepts it. Financial institutions cannot file lawsuits and must comply with the resolution proposal unconditionally. The discussion of introducing unilateral binding authority came to the forefront during the Moon Jae-in administration in 2020. When financial institutions decided not to accept the FSS's dispute resolution proposal regarding the KIKO foreign exchange derivative dispute, then-FSS chief Yoo Suk-hun pushed for the introduction of unilateral binding authority. At that time, the head of the FCP was Kim Eun-kyung, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School and currently a commissioner in the economic subcommittee of the Presidential Committee on Policy Planning.
The one who applied the brakes was the chairman of the Financial Services Commission. Former chairman Eun Sung-soo expressed opposition, stating, "While I understand the consumer protection aspect, I question whether it's right to deprive the constitutional right to trial," indicating his dissent. Afterward, with the resignation of the former chairman Yoon, the discussions fizzled out.
In 2022, then-presidential candidate Lee, who was from the Democratic Party of Korea, included the introduction of unilateral binding authority as a pledge. After the launch of the Yoon administration, the Democratic Party introduced a related bill, but it did not pass the National Assembly. At that time, the FSS conveyed its opposition to the National Policy Committee, stating that the proposal could infringe upon the financial institutions' right to a trial, contradicting the essence of the dispute resolution system.
The main argument against the introduction of unilateral binding authority is the 'infringement on the right of financial institutions to file claims.' The right to trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 27 of the Constitution. A lawyer who handled numerous dispute resolution cases related to misconduct in financial investment products stated, "The FSS dispute resolution committee is an entity that deliberates and decides on dispute resolutions, and the fundamental principle of resolution is 'agreement' between the parties." The lawyer added, "There have been several cases where the dispute resolution proposal was different from the court's ruling, and unconditionally depriving financial institutions of their right to trial is problematic." Concerns were raised that financial institutions, which frequently encounter complaints and small disputes, may see an increase in claims for dispute resolution and a rise in black consumers.
Proponents of introducing unilateral binding authority argue that limiting it to 'small' disputes would not bring much benefit, suggesting that financial institutions would not see a surge in dispute resolution applications as feared. The Presidential Committee on Policy Planning indicated that for small amounts, the criteria could be set lower than the 30 million won under the Small Claims Act, such as 10 million won or 20 million won. Professor Choi Byung-kyu from the Korea University Law School noted in a paper titled 'Research on the FSS dispute resolution decision and acknowledgment of unilateral binding authority' that considering the information power gap and differences in economic and intellectual capacities between financial companies and general consumers, it is necessary to recognize unilateral binding authority for dispute resolution decisions. However, he emphasized that as financial institutions also have the right to trial as citizens, caution should be exercised when restricting such rights, stating that using 10 million won as a threshold would be appropriate.