사이버 공간에서 급속히 확산되고 있는 상거래에서 법적 분쟁이 발생하였을 경우 이들 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 분쟁해결제도에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 그런데 현재 전자상거래 분쟁해결제도는 통일적인 하나의 제도에 의하지 않고 기업과 소비자간에 발생하는 소비자 분쟁해결제도와 기업과 기업간의 분쟁해결제도 및 전자거래기본법에 의한 분쟁해결제도 등이 있다. 따라서 본논문에서는 이들 각 제도들의 특징 및 절차와 법적 효력면에서 이들 제도들이 갖는 문제점과 이에 대한 합리적인 해결방안을 제시하고 있다.
In case of any occurrence of disputes related to e-Commerce, it is usually recommended that general disputes between consumer and business in domestic commercial trades should be settled by Korea Consumer Protection Board in accordance with Consumer Protection Law. In addition, it is also recommendable that those disputes in domestic trades that mainly feature `electronic` should be settled by Korea Institute of Electronic Commerce in accordance with Electronic Commerce Law, and trade disputes among different dealers in international trades should be settled by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in compliance with Arbitration Act of Korea. Especially, in the level of the legal force of dispute settlement and arbitration, it is legally provided that legal forces are impossible upon the rejection of such adjustment act in accordance with Electronic Commerce Law. However, it is also provided that such legal forces in accordance with Consumer Protection Law have the same force as the settlement on trial and those forces in accordance with Trade Arbitration Act of Korea have the same force as the final trial decision in court. However, we don`t have any special reason for differentiating such legal forces as described above in similar dispute settlement systems so that we can find it unreasonable to provide such differences in legal force. Thus, it is necessary that same legal force should be allowed upon the amendment in the future. Futhermore, it is recommended that same legal force should be admitted as the final in court in accordance with Arbitration Act of Korea, because those legal fields have more technical and specialized features than any other else.