The Research About Financial Consumer Protection Law In South Korea

With the rapid development of the financial industry, and the outbreak of the financial crisis in the United States and other developed countries, many countries are beginning to realize the need for financial consumer protection. After the Closed event of Korea Saving Bank happened in 2010, resulting in a massive financial consumers and triggered a rethinking of financial consumer protection. This study start from the current situation of Korean consumer protection regime, reviewed the 2012 release of financial Korea Consumer Protection Act. We also examined the establishment of Korean financial consumer protection agency, put forward a number of current problems, and recommend a more sophisticated financial consumers protection measures.This paper is divided into four main parts:the first part discussed the need to protect financial consumers. The second part analyzes the current status of the Korean financial consumer protection system, which include the legal system of financial consumer protection regime, business conduct regulation of financial consumer protection, afterwards protection systems and related financial institutions to protect consumers. The third part reviewed the Korea Financial Consumer Protection Act, which was analyzed from the background, the bill features and the main content of the bill. The fourth part described that the Korean financial consumer independence was examined to compare the different proposals. Finally, some financial education of consumers some suggestions were proposed.I suggest additions and modifications to some parts of the Korean financial consumer protection laws.First, the Korea Financial Consumer Protection laws only apply to Establishment of Financial Committee laws requires financial companies.In particular, the use of the money lending industry financial consumer protection laws are not.Second, priority obligations from the financial interests of consumers, the Financial Consumer Protection Act only provides for the financial obligations of consumers’ interest a priority, not specified consequences of the breach.Third, from the financial insititution disputes the financial dispute, the two institutions is also responsible for financial disputes so that financial consumers feel very confused.