인터넷망의 법적 성격과 ‘망 연결 대가’에 대한 고찰 ― 넷플릭스 판결을 중심으로 ―

Recently, there has been a sharp debate over the need for overseas CPs to pay domestic ISPs for Internet networks. In particular, various bills are being proposed to the National Assembly after the Netflix ruling. The core of the conflict is that there is no agreement on the scope of the cost to be paid for the goods of the Internet network. In this study, after analyzing the legal nature of the Internet network, the issue of conflict was considered and legal tasks were sought.
First of all, the Internet network is a public good that is essential for daily life and industrial activities, and cannot be completely left to market autonomy. Therefore, it is undesirable in light of the nature of the public good of the Internet network to drive the cause of conflicts over the use of the Internet network only to the battle of responsibility between CPs and ISPs. It is necessary to review together whether the government's role for the Internet network has been properly implemented.
Rather than confirming the concept of internet network access fee or transmission fee in the Netflix judgment, the court derived a comprehensive concept of ‘reward for internet network connection’ so that the CP bears the obligation to pay the cost. However, the scope of this reward should not be interpreted as an extension of the basis for paying the CP not only to the ISP directly connecting but also to the ISP connecting to it. This violates the principle of interconnection, which is the basic principle of the Internet, and will not only deepen the rich and poor of the CP, but also impair consumer utility as costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. In addition, the conflict between ISPs and overseas CPs also stems from the limitations of government policies for Internet networks as a public good, such as the change in the settlement method between peers in the interconnection notice and the problem of network investment policies that neglect international network investment. The government's short-sighted law revision and policy implementation should be reviewed again.