http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 박선종(Sun-Jong Park) (검색결과 47 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
박선종(Park, Sun Jong) 한국증권법학회 2014 증권법연구 Vol.15 No.3
금융투자상품의 거래주문시 착오가 발생하면, 통상 착오자 본인의 손해 여부가 문제된다. 그러나 최근 한국거래소에서 착오주문에 기하여 KB금융 주식 가격이 장중한때 가격제한폭까지 하락하면서, 제3자인 일부 주가연계증권(Equity Linked Securities: ELS) 투자자들에게 손해가 발생하여 문제가 되었다. 동 ELS 사안은 펀드매니저가 착오에 기한 대량의 오류주문을 집행하여, 결과적으로 시세가 변동하여 제3자가 손해를 입었을 경우, 그로 인한 피해자를 어디까지로 보는 것이 합리적인지를 규범적으로 확정하는 문제로 볼 수 있다. 이 글에서는 착오의 위법성과 귀책사유, 위험책임 및 제3자의 채권침해 측면에 국한하여 동 ELS 사안의 피해자의 범위를 규범적으로 어떻게 정하는 것이 합리적인가에 대하여 검토하고자 한다. 만일 고의로 동 주문을 집행한 경우라면 이는 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(이하 ‘자본시장법’이라 한다) 제176조 제4항 제3호의 시세조종에 해당하여, 동법 제177조에 규정된 손해배상책임이 있다. 그러나 이 글에서는 시세조종의 법리적용은 논의 범위에서 배제한다. In most cases, issues surrounding damages due to error trades in trading financial instruments, are limited to the damages suffered by the directly involved parties. However, in a recent event, an error trade on the KRX(Korea Exchange) caused the share price of KB Financial Group to drop reaching the daily lower limit. This lead to collateral damages on investors invested in a specific ELS(Equity Linked Securities). The same issue pertains to how and to what extent damage claims shall be recognized in case where the damage was indirectly suffered due to the market price movements caused by error trades. The study aims to review and define a practical extent of possible plaintiffs from the said event considering the illegality, liability, imputable cause and infringement of 3rdparties’ receivable rights. If the error trade has sent intentionally, this will be considered market price manipulation as prohibited by Article 176 Paragraph 4 Clause 3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act(FSCMA) and therefore will be liable for damages per Article 177 of the same law. However, market price manipulation will not be considered in this study.
-
-
박선종(Park, Sun Jong) 한국증권법학회 2013 증권법연구 Vol.14 No.3
금융투자상품의 매매업무 수행이 인간 중심(open outcry)에서 컴퓨터 중심(screen trading)으로 변화함에 따라, 민법 제109조상 착오에 관한 의사표시의 적용기준에 대한 새로운 해석의 필요성이 대두되었다. 한국거래소를 통한 파생상품의 거래에 있어서 착오매매의 성립이 가능한 중요한 배경 중 하나가 전자거래 환경이라는 점이다. 예컨대, 본문의 착오거래가 대면거래라면 실무상 상상하기 어려운 것이다. 왜냐하면 일방이 사안 1이나 사안 2와 같은 착오의 청약을 한 경우, 시장에 참여하는 평균적인 상대방이라면 누구나, 청약자의 착오임을 인지하고, 청약의 착오 여부를 되묻거나, 또는 청약의 가격을 재고(再考)하도록 알려 주는 것이 지극히 상식적인 거래의 모습이기 때문이다. 본고에서는 이러한 대면거래라면 성립되지 않을 착오의 계약이, 전자거래였기 때문에 성립된 경우로 범위를 한정하여, 이러한 경우 상대방의 신뢰보호가 얼마나 필요한 것인가에 대한 의문을 가지고 검토하였다. The momentum of the trading floor has long been transitioning to screen trading from the traditional open outcry. As such, the way and extent of the application of “Declaration of Intention under Mistake” as defined by Article 109 of the Civil Act requires review. One of the primary reasons trade errors occur when trading derivatives listed in the KRX is because the trades are executed electronically. In a face to face environment, the case studies herein are very unlikely to occur. As the opposite end of the trade error will no doubt perceive of the error and either re-confirm the prices or advise to re-think the order price. This study aims to assess how and to what extent the confidence of the other party needs to be protected limiting the cases to trade errors or mistakes that would not have occurred unless the trades were done electronically.
-
박선종 ( Park Sun-jong ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2011 외법논집 Vol.35 No.4
The recent allegations of current and former CEOs of 12 securities brokerages is causing stir not only within the industry but also within the financial regulatory authorities. The CEOs are accused of having provided ‘scalpers,’(in and out traders) dealing in ELWs with direct use of the brokerages dedicated lines allowing more split-second advantages which constitutes ‘unfair means’(Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act). There are a few critical issues regarding the prosecutors claims. Arbitrage plays a vital role in providing liquidity and promoting market efficiency. The current accusations of the prosecutors maybe construed as an attack against arbitrage trading. Secondly, in order to claim that a faster execution speed constitutes ‘unfair means’, the premise should be that it is possible to provide equal speed market access to every market participants. However, even within the same trading environment, in terms of nanoseconds(one billionth of a second), it is impossible to provide the exact same execution speed and therefore this is an existing impossibility. Thirdly, after the repeal of NYSE Rule 390 in 2000, the US has promulgated the Reg. NMS in 2005 and the EU has implemented MiFID in 2007. Major financial markets around the world are developing their policies acknowledging the investors needs and willingness to pay for a more efficient and faster execution speed. 60 exchanges around the world are promoting DMA(Direct Market Access) in one way or the other allowing if the investors are willing to bear the cost. This in the eyes of the prosecutors seems to be illegal and unfair advantages. Differentiating execution speed may seem controversial. However, 1) the benefit and role of arbitrage, 2) existing or initial impossibility of providing absolute equal execution speeds, 3) the international practice and trend, 4) the cases of US and Japan, 5) the effects of the current LP’s role as the sole quote provider are all reasons not to consider different execution speeds as ‘unfair means’. The prosecutors charges that providing faster execution services is against Subparagraph 1 Paragraph 1 Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act needs to be reviewed.
-
주제별 논단 : 키코 제2라운드 ; 키코계약(契約)에 대한 법적쟁점(法的爭點)의 재검토(再檢討)
박선종 ( Sun Jong Park ) 한국금융법학회 2011 金融法硏究 Vol.8 No.1
On November 2010, Seoul central district court has announced its views on the KIKO issue through a 100 or so series of rulings. However, the rulings lack the necessary examination of the contract structure as well as consideration for the different circumstances in each of the law suits. KIKO contracts does have some hedging properties to a certain extent. However, they are more or less a speculative investment tool rather than a hedging tool. 1:2 leverage KIKO contracts as in the cases, would sell 2 call options and obtain higher risk in order to finance the cost of buying 1 put option or the primary cost of hedging. Another words, 1:2 leverage KIKO contracts by its structure, does not reduce risk but rather increases it which is why KIKO contracts should not be considered hedging tools. Considering the zero cost nature, the profit margin and the liability of the involved parties, fraud and mistake may well be discussed as are some cases overseas. However, all the 100 or so lawsuits have different factual circumstances which needs to be considered separately case by case. In one extreme, there may be cases where the court should acknowledge the customers or the company`s claims of fraud by the banks. On the other extreme, there may be cases where the court should accept the bank`s defense ruling the company`s intent as speculative investment. Mistake or misrepresentation will be an issue somewhere in the middle ground. There will be varying rulings from the courts on different cases but most cases will likely be an issue of mistake and misrepresentation.
-
변액연금GMAB 미보증형 생명보험 상품의 법적용에 관한 연구
박선종(Park Sun Jong) 한국보험법학회 2016 보험법연구 Vol.10 No.1
보험은 우연성에서 기인한 손해에 대한 보장성이 고유기능이다. 그러나 변액보험의 경우 보장성에 투자성이 더해져서 일반적인 보험과는 상당히 다른 성질을 가지고 있다. 최근 보험업감독업무시행세칙의 개정(시행 2016. 4. 1.)으로 인하여, 생보사들이 판매하는 변액연금 GMAB 미보증형생명보험상품(이하 “GMAB미보증형상품”이라한다)의경우 연금개시시점에 계약자가 납입한 금액보다 연금재원이 적을 수 있으므로, 원본손실의 가능성이 제기되어, 자본시장법의 적용을 받는 투자성보험에 해당하는지 여부가 문제된다. 이 글에서는 GMAB미보증형상품에 대한 자본시장법 상 투자성보험의 규제가 적용되는 경우 영업행위 규제 등 생보사가 추가적으로 준수해야할 사항을 검토하고자 한다. 이 중 첫째는, 변액연금보험 가입권유시 적용되는 보험업법상 적합성 원칙과 투자성보험에 적용되는 자본시장법상적합성원칙의관계및구체적인적용범위이다. 둘째는, 자본시장법상적정성 원칙의 적용여부 및 보험업법과 자본시장법상 설명의무의 중복문제이다. 셋째는, 설명의무 위반에 따른 손해배상책임에 관한 사항이다. 이글은 이러한 검토를 통하여 ‘GMAB미보증형상품’에 대한 합리적인 규제방안에 관한 제언을 시도한다. The original function of insurance seems an appropriate coverage to the contingent accident. Variable insurance, however, has somewhat different function such as an investment tool. In case of ‘variable life annuity insurance without GMAB’(Guaranteed Minimum Accumulation Benefit) which has been sold since April 2016, it might be regulated by Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, because there is no guarantee on minimum accumulation benefit, so that the amount of coverage might be less than the amount of paid premium. This paper tries to find out what is the appropriate application of law on variable life annuity insurance without GMAB between Insurance Business Act and Capital Markets Act
-
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
