금융중개기관을 통해 유가증권을 간접보유하는 투자자의 법적 지위

허항진 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.27 No.1

Under the traditional system for direct holding of securities, individual securities were issued to investors who in turn had the right to trade those securities with other investors. In an modern indirect holding system on the other hand, financial intermediary such as a brokerage firm not only hold the securities on behalf of investors but also frequently own beneficial rights in those securities. In this wise, the indirect holding system is widely used in domestic and global trading of securities, and is decisively replacing direct holding because it both reduces the overall costs and complexities of record-keeping and lowers the risk of loss associated by physically transferring securities. Despite the changes in securities holding pattern from direct securities holding to indirect securities holding, conventional way of legal approach based on direct holding of securities still exists and tends to apply to the indirect holding system. Against this backdrop, a number of legal uncertainties emerged in such areas as the substantial laws. Among them, one of the main issue is what is the legal status of investors holding securities indirectly and their rights over them. This issue is related to the legal nature of investor rights over indirectly held securities, measures to protect investors, and the responsibilities of financial intermediaries towards investors. Most of all, an investor’s right over indirectly held securities should be classified as a property right rather than a simple personal or contractual claim against financial intermediaries. In the U.S., the investor’s legal status for indirectly held securities with financial intermediary is governed by Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which protects investors by conferring property rights with respect to indirectly held securities. A similar position arise under the general principle of English law. Under the English law, investors can enjoy proprietary interests in indirectly held securities by trust and co-ownership arrangements, equitable tenancies in common. In the same manner, investor’s rights on indirectly held securities are protected in the civil law jurisdictions by special legislation. Although investor’s right over indirectly held securities is viewed as a property right, when we consider today’s securities transaction and holding practice, it is not desirable to form a logic that allows an investor to legally trace to individual securities held with upper tier intermediary which does not have any relationship with an investor. Indirect holding system brings up an issue of what particular obligations a financial intermediary holds to an investor and what are the measures to rescue the investor in cases where the obligation is breached. Such an issue shall be basically determined by the legal provisions on the legal status and responsibilities of a financial intermediary. A majority of the issues, however, have to depend on the relations between investors and financial intermediaries, or any interpretation of the legal terms of contracts, which call for building a sound theoretical ground to set forth a clear standard for such interpretation. Under the traditional system for direct holding of securities, individual securities were issued to investors who in turn had the right to trade those securities with other investors. In an modern indirect holding system on the other hand, financial intermediary such as a brokerage firm not only hold the securities on behalf of investors but also frequently own beneficial rights in those securities. In this wise, the indirect holding system is widely used in domestic and global trading of securities, and is decisively replacing direct holding because it both reduces the overall costs and complexities of record-keeping and lowers the risk of loss associated by physically transferring securities. Despite the changes in securities holding pattern from direct securities holding to indirect securities holding, conventional way of legal approach based on direct holding of securities still exists and tends to apply to the indirect holding system. Against this backdrop, a number of legal uncertainties emerged in such areas as the substantial laws. Among them, one of the main issue is what is the legal status of investors holding securities indirectly and their rights over them. This issue is related to the legal nature of investor rights over indirectly held securities, measures to protect investors, and the responsibilities of financial intermediaries towards investors. Most of all, an investor’s right over indirectly held securities should be classified as a property right rather than a simple personal or contractual claim against financial intermediaries. In the U.S., the investor’s legal status for indirectly held securities with financial intermediary is governed by Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which protects investors by conferring property rights with respect to indirectly held securities. A similar position arise under the general principle of English law. Under the English law, investors can enjoy proprietary interests in indirectly held securities by trust and co-ownership arrangements, equitable tenancies in common. In the same manner, investor’s rights on indirectly held securities are protected in the civil law jurisdictions by special legislation. Although investor’s right over indirectly held securities is viewed as a property right, when we consider today’s securities transaction and holding practice, it is not desirable to form a logic that allows an investor to legally trace to individual securities held with upper tier intermediary which does not have any relationship with an investor. Indirect holding system brings up an issue of what particular obligations a financial intermediary holds to an investor and what are the measures to rescue the investor in cases where the obligation is breached. Such an issue shall be basically determined by the legal provisions on the legal status and responsibilities of a financial intermediary. A majority of the issues, however, have to depend on the relations between investors and financial intermediaries, or any interpretation of the legal terms of contracts, which call for building a sound theoretical ground to set forth a clear standard for such interpretation.

일본의 금융서비스제공법과 우리나라 빅테크 플랫폼에 대한 규제 시사점

이효경 한국상사법학회 2021 商事法硏究 Vol.39 No.4

As a part of its national strategy, the Japanese government has loosened regulations by promoting innovation through FinTech to develop economy and to address social problems while pushing ahead market environmental improvement. On 12th of December 2019, the Working Group of the Financial System Council reviewed cross-sectional regulatory system in business conditions by amending Act on Provision of Financial Services and Payment Services Act, and it established new license in the area of finance intermediary service. This amendment allowed financial intermediation in all areas of banking, securities and insurance with the only one license for financial service intermediary business though there needed to acquire licenses for each financial area before. This one registry including financial services over banking, securities and insurance allows the financial intermediation without belonging to a particular financial agency to result into the convenience of customers by realizing a financial service platform. In this paper, I look into the definition of financial services intermediary business, work scope, entry regulation and numbers of regulations according to the business sector handled by financial service intermediary. The Act on the Protection of Financial Consumers will go into effect in March 2021 in Korea. Korea will be able to look for the implications such as revision of The Act on the Protection of Financial Consumers or enactment of related new law in the future given that the same act in Japan comprehensively regulates financial products and service which intermediate banking and securities etc. while keeping future digital financial service development in mind. 일본정부는 국가전략 일환으로서 핀테크를 통해 이노베이션촉진으로 경제발전과 사회 과제를 해결하기 위해 시장 환경정비를 추진하면서 규제를 완화해왔다. 2019년 12월 20일에 금융심의회의 WG에 따라 금융상품의 판매 등에 관한 법률, 자금결제에 관한 법률 등을 개정하여 업태횡단적인 규제체계를 재검토하고, 금융중개 영역의 라이센서 신설함으로써 종래에는 은행, 증권, 보험 각각의 분야에서 중개업 라이센스 취득이 필요하였지만, 이번 개정으로 금융서비스중개업의 라이센스만으로 은행증권보험 모든 분야에서의 중개를 허용하였다. 은행, 증권, 보험에 걸쳐있는 금융서비스를 하나의 등록으로 특정의 금융기관에 소속되지 않고 중개가 가능하며, 금융서비스판 플랫폼을 실현하여 고객의 편의를 도모할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 금융서비스중개업의 창설에 따른 금융서비스중개업의 정의, 업무범위, 진입규제와 금융서비스중개업자가 취급하는 서비스 분야에 따른 각종 규제를 살펴본다. 우리나라도 최근 금융소비자보호법이 제정되어 2021년 3월에 시행을 앞두고 있다. 일본의 금융서비스제공법은 향후 디지털금융 발전 방향을 염두에 두고, 은행, 증권 등을 매개하는 금융상품 및 서비스에 대해 포괄적으로 규제하고 있다는 점에서 향후 우리나라에도 금융소비자보호법의 개정 또는 관련 신법 제정 등 시사점을 찾을 수 있을 것이다. 우리나라도 기존의 금융기관과 빅테크 기업 간의 파트너쉽 관계와 상생을 위하여 업권별 규제를 동일기능 동일규제로 개편하는데 박차를 가하며, 폭넓은 금융서비스를 취급할 수 있도록 금융서비스판 플랫폼을 실현하고 금융서비스시장 전체의 변화를 주시하면서 시장 환경정비를 추진해 나가야 할 것으로 생각된다.

적격금융기관을 활용한 외국 일반투자자의 우리나라 상장증권투자에 대한 원천징수 개선방안 -미국의 적격중개기관제도(QI) 도입을 중심으로-

장연호,심태섭 한국세무학회 2023 세무학 연구 Vol.40 No.2

In January 2023, the Financial Services Commission announced the “Plan to Improve Access to Capital Markets for Foreign Investors”. If the plan is implemented, it is expected that foreign individuals and small and medium-sized institutional investors will be able to easily trade stocks in the Korean stock market by using an omnibus account, which integrates trading and settlement in a single account. However, Korean financial institutions, which are subject to domestic withholding tax obligations, are unable to apply the tax treaty benefits due to the lack of supporting documents required under the current tax law, as they do not have residency certificates for foreign general investors who do not have a direct account opening relationship in the international securities trading environment. As a result, it is likely that the purpose of activating foreign integrated accounts, which is scheduled to be implemented in the future, will not be achieved. This study aims to suggest ways to improve the withholding system applied to foreign investors, especially foreign retail investors, when they invest in the Korean securities market through foreign integrated accounts in an international securities depository settlement environment to meet international standards. In particular, this study reviews the Qualified Intermediary(“QI”) system for non-resident withholding taxes in the United States, which relieves foreign intermediaries that have signed a QI agreement of the burden of submitting documentary evidence for the application of tax treaty privileges for foreign retail investors through such intermediaries. And this study proposes the introduction of the QI system adopted by the United States. Based on reviewing the recent improvment to access to foreign investment in Korea and the related tax law amendements, it is necessary to adopt the self-identity verification system, which is the basis of the U.S. QI system, and establish a taxpayer verification procedure by a qualified foreign intermediary financial institution. In addition, it is necessary to expand the scope of the qualified foreign financial company system introduced through the recent tax law amendment to include investments in listed stocks. This will make it easier for foreign individual and small and medium- sized corporate investors to invest the Korean listed stocks. 금융위원회는 최근 외국인 투자자 등록제도 폐지 및 외국인 통합계좌(omnibus account) 활성화 등을 주요 골자로 “외국인 투자자의 자본시장접근성 제고방안”을 발표하여, 2023년내 시행할 예정이다. 계획 중인 규제 개선이 이루어지면, 매매와 결제가 단일 계좌에서 통합적으로 이루어지는 외국인 통합계좌를 이용할 수 있기에, 해외 개인 및 중소 기관투자자가 손쉽게 우리나라 주식시장의 주식을 거래할 수 있을 것이 기대된다. 그러나 국내 원천징수 의무를 갖고 있는 우리나라 금융기관은 해당금융기관 거래계좌가 없는 외국 일반투자자의 거주자증명서 등을 보유하고 있지 않아, 현행 세법상 증빙서류 불비를 원인으로 조세조약 특례를 적용할 수 없다. 이에 따라 앞으로 시행예정인 외국인 통합계좌 활성화라는 목적을 달성할 수 없게 될 가능성이 높다. 이에 본 연구에서는 외국인 투자자, 특히 외국인 일반투자자가 국제증권예탁결제 환경에서 외국인통합계좌를 통하여 우리나라 증권시장에 투자할 때 적용되는 원천징수제도를 국제적 수준에 맞도록개선하는 방안을 제시하고자 한다. 특히, 가장 대표적인 국제증권시장인 미국은 비거주자 원천징수에적격외국중개기관(Qualified Intermediary, “QI”) 제도를 도입하여, QI협약을 체결한 외국 중개기관에게 원천징수를 위한 고객확인의무를 부담시키는 대신, 해당 중개기관을 통한 외국일반투자자들의 조세조약 특례적용를 위한 증빙서류 제출 부담을 완화시키고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 우리나라의 현행 원천징수제도를 국제적 수준으로 개선하기 위하여 미국이 채택하고 있는 QI 제도를 우리나라에도입하는 방안을 제안하고자 한다. 최근의 우리나라 외국인 투자 접근성 제고를 위한 조치와 개정된 세법의 내용을 검토한 결과, 우리나라에서도 미국 QI제도의 근간인 본인확인제도를 도입하여 적격외국중개금융기관을 이용한 납세자확인절차를 마련할 필요가 있다. 그리고 최근 세법개정을 통해 도입한 적격외국금융회사제도의 적용범위를 상장증권투자까지 확대할 필요가 있다. 또한 우리나라의 많은 금융기관이 미국 국세청의 적격외국중개기관 자격을 보유하고 있는 상황에서, 미국의 QI제도(혹은 이와 유사한)를 도입함으로써 비거주 개인 및 중소 기관 투자자가 보다 손쉽게 우리나라 주식시장에서 조세조약 혜택을 받으며 주식을 거래할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다.

금융시장에서 정보중개자에 관한 법적 연구

이민경 은행법학회 2022 은행법연구 Vol.15 No.1

This article aims to analyze the legal grounds and structures of information intermediaries' liabilities in the financial market and propose measures to secure their legal accountabilities. For purposes of this article, 'information intermediaries' are defined by their function as collectivizing agents in charge of the collection, processing, production, and delivery of information for investors who are faced with disadvantages of asymmetric information in the financial market. Examples of such information intermediaries include accounting firms, credit rating agencies, proxy advisors, etc. In light of the above introductory note, this article explores certain features of information produced by information intermediaries in the financial market. First, information connotes legal implications that may be varied depending on its type, which is largely classified as audit opinions, credit ratings, closing opinions, fairness opinions or proxy voting advice in this article. The additional feature of such information is embedded in its nature of serving a public good, which may give rise to a free-rider problem in which people are incentivized to free ride on the purchases of the public good by others. Further, the nature of an information-intensive industry featuring an oligopolistic market structure makes it difficult to expect the market to control the quality of information. Based on the above analysis and underlying grounds leading to such analysis, this article stresses on the need to hold each information intermediary liable for its faulty information produced, proportional to its ripple effect in the financial market. Holding information intermediaries accountable on the grounds of tort under the Civil Act often fails because it is extremely difficult to prove the existence of damages and the causation between the faulty information produced and such losses. Imposing gatekeeper liabilities could also be considered - such liabilities, however, would not apply to newly emerging information intermediaries. An alternative proposed by this article in response to such limitations is to enhance the transparency of the information-producing process on the part of information intermediaries to overcome asymmetric information between such intermediaries and the users.

자산운용업의 발전과 그 기능에 대한 연구 - 한국의 채권형 펀드를 대상으로

원승연(Seung Yeon Won) 한국경제발전학회 2008 經濟發展硏究 Vol.14 No.1

  본 논문은 한국의 채권형 펀드를 분석대상으로 자산운용업의 금융중개기관으로서의 기능을 평가하였다. 자산운용업의 기능을 기존 금융중개기관에 대한 이론에 입각하여, 첫째, 투자자에 대한 편익 제공 기능, 둘째, 자본시장의 자금공급자로서의 기능, 셋째, 금융안정화 수단으로서의 기능으로 분류하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과에 따르면, 분석기간 동안 한국의 채권형 펀드는 금융중개기관으로서의 기능을 효과적으로 수행하지 못한 것으로 나타났다. 첫째, 채권형 펀드는 시장 대비 낮은 운용성과를 보였다. 둘째, 채권형 펀드의 풀링(pooling) 기능과 장기적 자금으로의 전환은 매우 미약한 수준이었다. 셋째, 채권형 펀드는 기관투자자로서 채권시장의 가격안정성에 기여하지 않았던 것으로 확인되었다.<BR>  이러한 분석 결과는 자산운용업의 발전을 위한 정책 수립에 시사점을 제공한다. 정부는 자산운용업의 발전을 위해서는 무엇보다도 자산운용업의 본래의 기능을 유지하고 성장할 수 있도록 하는데 정책을 수립하는데 주력해야 한다는 점이다. 특히, 본 연구 결과는 펀드의 기본적인 기능인 ‘자금의 풀링(pooling)’이 제대로 작동할 수 있는 제도적 장치의 확보가 중요하다는 점을 제시하고 있다.   This paper evaluates the function of bond funds as financial intermediaries in Korea. Based on the economic literature relating to the financial intermediaries, we classified the function of asset management sector into three categories; first, function for benefit of fund investors, second, function as the suppliers of cash flows in capital market, third, function as financial market stabilizers. The empirical analysis shows that bond funds did not effectively do jobs as financial intermediaries in Korean capital market. First, the performance of bond funds was lower than the performance of markets. Second, owing to the lack of pooling effects, bond funds failed to transfer investor"s cash into long-term funds. Third, bond funds did not contribute to the stabilization of price volatility in capital market.<BR>  This study gives the implication to the government policy for asset management sector. For development of asset management sector, the policy should be focused on advancing the function of funds as financial intermediaries. Especially, this study suggests that the pooling effects of funds should be recovered for the development of asset management sector.

블록체인 기술의 법적 쟁점과 운용방안에 관한 연구

김홍기 한국경제법학회 2018 경제법연구 Vol.17 No.2

Distributed technology, represented by the blockchain, is at the center of the 4th industrial revolution with Artificial intelligence(“AI”). However, since the block chain technology is still under development and has not been widely proven, it is difficult to predict Where it is going to be develop into. Innovative technologies present new opportunities and challenges. In addition to the development of technology, it is necessary for us to set up and operate a reasonable legal system so as to have a leading position in the 4th industrial revolution. In relation to the legislative setting, two features of the block chain technology should be noted. First, the block chain technology allows anonymous trading partners to trust the system without the help of an intermediary. This can be achieved by building a block chain transaction without government intervention, and the government need to leads to a discussion on the extent to which it will intervene. Second, as the essence of block chain technology is internet program, it can be applied flexibly to reflect market situation. Therefore, regulation that reflects the characteristics of the applied market rather than uniform regulation of the block chain technology is necessary. Considering the characteristics of the above-mentioned block chain technology, the following operation methods are recommended for each field. In the case of virtual currency, the legal nature of the currency is not clear and its functions and effects vary depending on the use. In the case of ICO, ICO funding is a global trend and has a high potential. Thus it is necessary to gradually allow ICOs while referring to foreign operation cases. In the case of smart contracts, it is inevitable to apply it to the real world, so it is recommended for a person such as a court or an attorney to intervene. Besides in order to enable the advantages of the block chain technology to be exercised, it is necessary to regulate relevant regulations in the off-line process such as establishment registration, licensing and the like. 블록체인(Blockchain)으로 대표되는 분산금융기술(distributed technology)은 인공지능(AI)과 더불어 4차 산업혁명에서 중심적인 지위를 차지하고 있다. 그러나 블록체인 기술은 여전히 개발 중이며 널리 검증되지 않았기 때문에 어디까지 발전할 것인지 예측하기 어렵다. 혁신적인 기술은 우리에게 새로운 기회를 제시한다. 4차 산업혁명에서 주도적인 지위를 가질 수 있도록 기술의 개발 외에도 합리적인 법제도의 설정과 운용이 필요하다. 법제도의 설정에서는 블록체인 기술이 가지는 2가지의 특징에 주목해야 한다. 첫째, 블록체인 기술은 익명의 거래당사자들이 중개기관의 도움이 없이도 시스템을 신뢰하고 거래를 검증할 수 있도록 하였는데, 이는 정부의 개입이 없는 자생적인 블록체인 거래생태계의 구축이 가능한지, 정부는 어느 정도로 개입하여야 하는지의 논의로 이어진다. 이른바 탈중앙화의 논의이다. 둘째, 블록체인기술의 본질은 인터넷 프로그램이므로 시장 사정을 반영하여 탄력적으로 적용될 수 있다는 점이다. 따라서 일률적 규제 방식을 도출하기 보다는 적용되는 시장의 특성을 반영한 적정한 규제방식과 수준을 찾는 노력이 필요하다. 위와 같은 블록체인 기술의 특징을 고려하면 각 분야별로 다음과 같은 운용방안이 필요하다. 가상화폐의 경우, 법적 성격이 분명치 않고 사용처에 따라 그 기능과 효과가 달라지므로 구체적인 사정을 반영하여 규제하여야 한다. ICO의 경우, ICO를 통한 자금조달행위는 세계적인 추세이고 잠재력이 높은데 언제까지 외면할 수는 없다. 외국의 운용사례를 참조하면서 점진적으로 ICO를 허용할 필요가 있다. 스마트계약의 경우, 즉각적인 계약의 이행으로 거래의 효율성을 증가시키지만 현실세계에 적용함에는 한계가 있으므로 법원이나 변호사 등 사람의 개입이 불가피하다. 그 밖에 블록체인 기술의 장점이 발휘될 수 있도록 설립등기, 인허가 등 오프라인 절차에서도 관련법규를 정비할 필요가 있다.

Legal Issues in Designing DeFi Regulation

Young Yoon Park 이준국제법연구원 2023 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.16 No.2

This paper presents factors to consider when designing DeFi regulations. DeFi regulations may be established by imposing obligations on developers and operators, who exist even in extreme decentralization cases. However, the requirements in current financial legislation, which heavily rely on intermediaries’ organization and personnel, are difficult to apply to DeFi. Instead, under DeFi, information can be obtained, analyzed, and aggregated on the blockchain and reported to the authority automatically and regulatory requirements may be reflected in the smart contract and automatically executed. This may require mandatory code audits by supervisory authorities and civil technology experts prior to execution, to check whether legal requirements are embedded in the code. In addition, measures addressing the risk-contagion effects in macroeconomic crisis, potentially arising from DeFi’s connectivity with traditional finance, must be considered.

China’s Financial Real Intermediary Scale, Intermediary Quality, and Social Employment

손양,강승호 한국동북아경제학회 2022 동북아경제연구 Vol.34 No.3

This study uses China’s overall financial institutions and city commercial banks as the research objects to explore the transmission mechanism and impact effect of financial real intermediary scale and intermediary quality on social employment. The results show that the intermediary (quantity and quality) between the overall financial institutions and city commercial banks from a national sample has a promoting effect on employment. The financial intermediaries (quantity and quality) of the financial institutions in coastal areas in the research sample have a negative impact on the growth of employment, while it is the opposite for the institutions in inland areas. In the research sample of city commercial banks, the physical intermediary scale in coastal and inland areas is conducive to employment growth. To sum up, a financial intermediary is an important means to promote social employment. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the intermediary function of traditional financial institutions, such as banks.

공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사에 관한 고찰

황정환(Hwang, Jeong-Hwan) 경희법학연구소 2011 KHU 글로벌 기업법무 리뷰 Vol.4 No.2

일반지주회사가 중간지주회사를 통해 금융회사를 자회사로 둘 수 있게 하는 규정을 둔 공정거래법 개정안은 기존의 금산분리원칙을 수정하는 입장을 취하고 있어, 금산분리제도도 이제 세계 경제상황의 변화와 더불어 변화해야 할 필요성이 있는지 여부 및 공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사의 도입 의의와 그 파급효과에 대하여 검토할 필요가 있다. 먼저 금산분리원칙에 대해 검토하면, 외국계 자본으로부터 금융 주권 수호, 금융회사 대형화 기반 마련 및 자본의 효율적인 활용, 그리고 새로운 경쟁상대의 유입으로 경쟁이 활발하게 된다면 보다 좋은 서비스의 제공은 필연적으로 따라오게 되므로 금산분리원칙은 수정되어야 할 필요성이 있다고 본다. 우리나라의 현행 관련법률은 지주회사가 지배하는 자회사의 업종에 따라 일반지주회사와 금융지주회사로 구분하여 규제하는 바, 일반지주회사는 대규모기업집단에 의한 경제력 집중을 억제하기 위한 공정거래법을 적용하고 금융지주회사의 경우는 공정거래법도 일부 적용되나, 금융규제로서의 특성을 반영하여 금융지주회사법이 추가로 적용되고 있다. 이에 반하여, 공정거래법 개정안에 따르면 비금융회사인 일반지주회사가 보험회사를 포함하여 금융자회사가 3개 이상 이거나 금융자회사 자산총액의 합계액이 20조 원 이상인 경우, 금융회사를 보유하려면 중간지주회사를 의무적으로 두어야 한다. 그리고 그 중간지주회사가 금융회사를 총괄적으로 지배하게 된다. 공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사제도는 일반지주 회사가 금융회사를 자회사로 둘 수 있게 바뀌는 점과 더불어 이 중간지주회사를 지배하는 일반지주회사에 대한 규제가 상대적으로 완화된다는 점이 가장 큰 핵심 사안일 것이다. 다만, 공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사에 대하여는 금융지주회사법이 적용되어 금융감독위원회 및 금융감독원의 관리·감독을 받게 되는 반면에 이 중간지주회사를 지배하는 일반 지주회사에 대하여는 공정거래법이 적용되어 공정거래위원회의 관리·감독을 받게 되는 이 원적인 법률적용과 감독기관의 구성은 그 효율성 및 적정성 측면에서 문제가 있다고 본다. 또한 공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사라는 제도로 인하여 오히려 규모가 큰 공정거래법 개정안의 중간지주회사 설립 대상 일반지주회사에 비하여 상대적으로 규모가 작은 금융지주회사 법상의 비은행지주회사에 오히려 가중한 규제를 하게 되는 문제점이 있다. 향후 미국 및 EU와의 FTA체결을 통해 시장이 개방되는 것을 고려한다면, 미국 및 EU의 관련 입법의 태도를 반영하여 규제의 일원화를 위한 입법개선의 노력이 필요할 것이다. The principle of the separation of banking and commerce(“the principle” hereafter) has been maintained since it is based on some propositions. Those propositions include “dual bankruptcy proposition”, “impotent financial supervision proposition”, “information leakage proposition”, and “amnesia of the position proposition” The basic assumption of “the priciple” is that the bank would become a private source of funding of the Big firms if “the priciple” is repealed. But the systems should be reformed since the economic and political climate changes. “The principle” has had many effects on various laws and systems in Korea which include the fair trade act and financial industry restructuring act. During the past years when “the principle” was maintained, Korean financial industry was not developed much. It has been 10 years since Korea experience a foreign exchange crisis and the trend of financialization appears in the capitalism. Many funds are raised and managed and the size is dramatically increasing these days. So it needs that “The principle” should be changed so that new money can flow into the industry and new management system can be adopted. The degree of the regulations on the entire holding company including the intermediary financial holding companies introduced by the revised bill of the Korean Fair Trade Act is mitigated as compared to that of the regulations of the Korean Financial Holding Company Act. Because the intermediary financial holding company introduced by the revised bill of the Korean Fair Trade Act is expected to be used far more than the use of the intermediary financial holding company of the Korean Financial Holding Company Act. However, these two intermediary holding companies are financial holding company so that such a regulatory arbitrage must be removed. Moreover, Korea has to enforce Free Trade Agreement with the EU and the U.S.A. Therefore Korea needs to review the information of regulations of the EU and the U.S.A. on “the principle” and reflect the same or almost same degree of their regulatory appoach to the Korean legal system.

글로벌 금융위기와 동아시아 금융협력 -아시아 채권시장 이니셔티브의 형성과 발전

이용욱 ( Yong Wook Lee ) 서울대학교 국제문제연구소 2011 세계정치 Vol.15 No.-

동아시아 금융위기 후 동아시아 금융지역주의가 상당한 수준의 제도적 발전으로도 연결되어 그 원인과 현재 트렌드, 미래의 제도적 함의 등에 대한 논의가 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 2008년 글로벌 금융위기는 동아시아 금융협력에 힘을 실어주고 있으며, ASEAN+3 재무장관회의를 통해 더욱 구체적인 모습의 정책공조 및 제안들이 나오고 있다. 글로벌 금융위기는 국제금융질서 주도국인 미국의 위상 약화를 가져왔으며, 특히 동아시아 금융위기 후 신자유주의 성향인 서구 주도의 국제금융질서에 대한 의존성을 줄이려는 동아시아 각국의 역내 금융협력을 촉진 시키는 계기가 되었다. 이러한 맥락에서, 이 글은 동아시아 금융지역주의의 한 축인 아시아 채권시장 이니셔티브(Asian Bond Market Initiative, ABMI)의 태동과 발전에 대한 원인과 미래 발전에 관해 논한다. ABMI의 태동과 발전에 관한 서술적 내러티브를 기반으로 이 글은 기존의 비관적인 전망에 변하여 ABMI는 지난 10여 년간 점진적으로 서구 주도의 글로벌 금융시장에 대한 동아시아 지역의 자율성을 높이기 위한 역내 금융시장 활성화의 방향으로 일관되게 발전하여 왔음을 보인다. ABMI의 궁극적 목표는 단기적 국가 이익의 차원을 넘어 동일한 금융 규범과 규제를 공유하는 역내 채권시장의 통합을 향해 일관되게 움직이고 있음을 경험적으로 논한다. 역내 금융시장 인프라의 부재와 함께, 점진적인 ABMI의 발전의 한 원일은 바로 역내 금융시장의 통합을 위한 조율과정이 한 축을 차지하고 있다고 주장한다. 이러한 일련의 과정에서, 2008년 글로벌 금융위기는 ABMI의 구체적인 제도화를 촉진하는 역할을 하였다. ASEAN plus Three countries have considerably institutionalized their financial and monetary cooperation since the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The intensified cooperation has drawn substantial attention from scholarly as well as policy-making communities over the last ten years. Global financial crisis, which started in the United States in 2008, has played a role of furthering regional efforts for financial and monetary stability in East Asia. Global financial crisis critically weakened the United States in managing international economic relations. This sped up the ongoing process of regional cooperation designed to increase regional autonomy from Western-centered international financial order. In this context, this article seeks to analyze the emergence and development of the Asian Bond Market Initiative (ABMI), The ABMI is one of three pillars constituting East Asian financial regionalism along with the Chiang Mai Initiative and East Asian common currency discussion. The findings are as follows. Contrary to some negative assessment of the ABMI as a failed case of East Asian financial regionalism, this article shows that ASEAN plus Three countries have steadily but unmistakenly made progress in the institutionalization of the ABMI in a way to reduce the region`s dependence on Western financial market for investment. One of the key successes in this regard is the establishment of Credit Guarantee Investment Facility (CGIF) in May 2011. CGIF is a crucial institutional mechanism likely to facilitate the development of regional bond market to a considerable degree.