• 서로 수입하는 서비스 상품에 대한 내국민 대우와 최혜국 대우
• 서비스 판매 인허가 결정에 대해 시의 적절한 통보를 제공함으로써 서비스 부문 규제의 개발과 구현에 투명성을 증진한다.
• 예로 수출 및 국산 부품 사용 요건과 고용칙령 등 외국인 직접 투자 자격 요건을 금한다; 그리고 서비스 공급자가 제공할 수 있는 서비스 사업체의 유형에 대한 제한을 금한다.

미국과 남한의 협상자들이 동 협정 조항을 이 광범위한 범위의 서비스에 적용할 수 있도록 한미 FTA에 따른 몇 가지 개념에 합의하였다. 양국은 서비스 부문 공약 사항으로 “네거티브 리스트” 접근 방식에 동의하였다. 즉, 한미 FTA는 예외적으로 부속합의서에서 제외 항목으로 식별하지 않는 이상 모든 유형의 서비스에 적용될 예정이다. 추가로 양국의 공약은 역진 방지된다. 즉 미국이나 남한 경제에 새로운 서비스가 등장하면, 예외로 확인하지 않는 이상 해당 서비스 상품들도 자동으로 FTA에 포함된다; 만일 한 쪽 일방이 일방적으로 면제 항목으로 등재된 사안을 자유화한다면 그 항목은 자동으로 한미 FTA에 따라 적용된다. 게다가 만일 한미 FTA의 한 당사국이 다른 FTA 아래 제 삼국 서비스 공급자에 대해 최혜국 대우를 확대한다면 상대 한미 FTA 당사국에도 최혜국 대우가 확대되도록 한다.

• 예로 서비스 공급 업체 수와 제공되는 서비스의 전체 매출, 제공되는 서비스의 총 규모, 그리고 서비스 공급 업체가 채용할 총인원 등을 한정하는 시장 접근 제한을 금한다.
• 법률 서비스

 

 

 

미국 서비스 제공 업체를 대표하는 사람들은 한미 FTA에 대해 매우 고무되어 있으며 동 협정의 승인을 촉구한 바 있다. 미국 서비스 기업연맹 로버트 바스티니 회장은 성명에서 주장하길:

우리는 이번 협정으로 미국 서비스 제공 업체에 상당한 이익을 담보해준 슈와브 무역대사와 협상단을 치하한다…. 한국은 미국 서비스 회사의 중요한 시장이며, 이번 협정은 매우 양질의 협정문으로 미 의회가 신속하게 통과해야 마땅하다. 왜냐면 새로운 일자리를 지원하는 새로운 수익을 창출할 것이기 때문이다.⁹

1.  
   2011년 8월 9일 미국 의회조사국 보고서 CRS, Congressional Research Service


2.  
   2007 국가 무역평가 보고서- 해외무역장벽. 366 페이지미국 무역대표부


3.  
   고용칙령


4.  
   제 13장 금융서비스 부속서 가. 한글본


5.  
   한미 자유무역협정 14장 통신 한글본
6.  
7. Financial and Other Services

U.S. service providers exported $15.5 billion in services to South Korea in 2010. Among them were South Koreans’ travel to the United States ($2.6 billion); other transportation, such as freight services ($3.3 billion); royalties and license fees ($4.0 billion); and other private services, such as professional services, business services, banking, insurance, and other financial services ($5.9 billion). ¹³⁾ However, this amount probably undervalues the total volume of U.S. sales of services to South Korea as services are also sold through three other modes of delivery: by U.S. companies with a long-term presence in South Korea, by U.S. providers to South Korean residents located temporarily in the United States, and by U.S. providers temporarily located in South Korea.

In 2010, the United States imported $10.4 billion in services, including other transportation ($3.0 billion), U.S. travel to South Korea ($2.0 billion), expenditures by U.S. military ($2.7 billion), and other travel ($1.6 billion). ¹⁴⁾ This figure does not include services sold to U.S. residents by South Korean firms through the other modes of delivery.

U.S.-South Korean trade in services cuts across several chapters of the KORUS FTA—Chapter 12 (cross-border trade in services); chapter 13 (financial services); and Chapter 15 (telecommunications); chapter 11 (foreign investment); among others. A major U.S. objective in the KORUS FTA negotiations was to obtain South Korean commitments to reduce barriers to trade and investment in its services sector, especially in professional, financial, and telecommunications services.

In general the two countries would commit to:

• provide national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment to the services imports from each other;


• promote transparency in the development and implementation of regulations in services providing timely notice of decisions on government permission to sell services;


• prohibit limits on market access, such as a caps on the number of service providers, on the total value of services provided, on the total quantity of services provided, and on the total number of persons that can be employed by services providers;


• prohibit foreign direct investment requirements, such as export and local content requirements and employment mandates; and


• prohibit restrictions on the type of business entity through which a service provider could provide a service.

U.S. and South Korean negotiators agreed to several concepts under the KORUS FTA that could apply the agreements’ provisions to a broad scope of services. The two countries agreed to the “negative list” approach in making commitments in services. That is, the KORUS FTA is to apply to all types of services unless identified as an exception in the relevant annexes. In addition, the commitments are ratcheted—when new services emerge in the U.S. or South Korean economies, those services are automatically covered by the FTA unless identified as an exception; if either country unilaterally liberalizes a measure that it had listed as an exemption, it is automatically covered under the FTA. Furthermore, if one KORUS FTA partner extends preferential treatment to service providers from a third country under another FTA, it is to extend the preferential treatment to its KORUS FTA partner.

The United States sought greater reciprocity in the treatment of professional services and thereby gain increased access to the South Korean market for U.S. providers. The United States and South Korea agreed to form a professional services working group to develop methods to recognize mutual standards and criteria for the licensing of professional service providers. Under the KORUS FTA, South Korea would allow U.S. law firms and U.S. licensed attorneys to provide advisory services on U.S. and international law on entry into force of the KORUS FTA. South Korea would also permit U.S. legal representative offices to establish cooperative operations with a South Korean firm to handle matters pertaining to domestic and foreign legal matters, and, no later than five years after the agreement’s entry into force, would allow U.S. law firms to form joint ventures with South Korean firms. However, South Korea would still reserve the right to restrict the activities of foreign lawyers.

Regarding financial services, under the KORUS FTA, if a domestic provider in one partner country develops and sells a new financial service in its home market, providers from the FTA partner country would be able to sell a like service in that market. The agreement would allow an FTA partner government to impose restrictions on the sale of financial services by providers from the other partner country for prudential reasons, for example, to protect investors, depositors, policy holders, or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed. The FTA would also permit either partner government to restrict monetary transfers in order to ensure the soundness of financial institutions.

The South Korean insurance market is the seventh-largest in the world. The USITC estimates, therefore, that U.S. insurers would be poised to obtain sizeable gains in a liberalized South Korean services market. ¹⁵⁾ U.S. insurance companies have been concerned that the state-owned Korea Post and the cooperative insurance providers—the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative—are not regulated by the Korean Financial Supervisory Commission or by the Financial Supervisory Service, while both private-sector foreign and domestic providers are so regulated. ¹⁶⁾ Under the KORUS FTA, South Korea agreed that those entities would be subject to an independent state regulator as opposed to being self-regulated. ¹⁷⁾ In addition, Korea Post would not be allowed to offer new insurance products. The two countries would allow a partner country financial services provider to transfer electronically information from its territory as necessary in the course of doing business. ¹⁸⁾ This is a provision that the U.S. industry highlighted as being particularly important.

In telecommunications services, South Korea would reduce government restrictions on foreign ownership of South Korean telecommunications companies. Two years after the KORUS FTA enters into force, U.S. companies would be able to own up to 100% of voting shares in domestic South Korean telecommunications companies, and those companies would be able to own up to 100% of a facilities-based licensee. ¹⁹⁾ These provisions do not apply to KT Corporation nor to SK Telecom Co for which a 49% foreign ownership limit would remain. In addition, each KORUS FTA partner would ensure that telecommunications providers from the other would have access to and use of its public telecommunications network for purposes of interconnection under nondiscriminatory conditions and would guarantee dialing portability among other conditions. ²⁰⁾

Those who represent U.S. services providers have been enthusiastic about the KORUS FTA and have urged its approval. In a statement, Robert Vastine, president of the Coalition of Services Industries claimed:

We commend Ambassador Schwab and the team of negotiators who secured significant benefits for U.S. services providers in this agreement…. Korea is a key market for U.S. service companies, and this is a very high-quality agreement that merits swift passage by the Congress because it creates new commercial opportunities that will support new jobs. ^21)sas