프랑스 제정법상 '신탁' 개념 도입에 관한 소고

심인숙(In Sook Shim) 중앙법학회 2011 中央法學 Vol.13 No.4

In February 2007, France, a major civil law country, enacted a new law instituting the "fiducie" as a legal creature of the French statutory regime. As a result, thirty new articles were inserted into the French Civil Code in order to introduce an Anglo-American trust-like relationship, the "fiducie". However, due to the concerns from the fiscal authorities that the new institution would be used for the purposes of avoiding the fiscal obligations or evading other regulatory limitations, the "fiducie" is heavily regulated and confined to very limited use, compared to its Anglo-American counterpart, the "trust". This article purports to introduce the frameworks of the fiducie legislations and to briefly compare them with those of the Anglo-American trust and Korean trust. Part II of this article goes through the historical backgrounds of the fiducie legislations and explains the basic structure of the statutory fiducie. It points out that the fiducie is a hybrid product that is based upon contractual relationship but is also flavored by the Anglo-American trust-like consequences(especially the ring-fencing features of the trust assets). Even though the French legislature did not adopt the separation of legal ownership and equitable ownership under the common law, it achieved functionally similar consequences by virtue of a few statutory provisions taking advantage of the concept of the "patrimoine d` affectation"(fiduciary patrimony). Part III of this article analyzes the essential elements of the fiducie, that is a transaction involving the transfer, by one or more constituent(settlor), of assets, rights or securities, to one or more fiduciare(trustee) who, keeping them segregated from their own patrimony, act so as to further a particular purpose for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries. A fiducie is created by an express contract between the constituent(s) and the fiduciare(s), which must specify beneficiary(s), the duration that may not exceed 99 years, and the purpose of the fiducie and the power of the fiduciare. Fiduciary patrimony is protected from claims by the creditors of the fiduciary(s) as well as those of the constituent(s). The only debts that may affect the properties under the fiducie are the debts that arose in connection with the management of the fiducie. And if the fiduciare acts beyonds his powers, and the third party is aware of this, the contract will be void. A fiducie is void if it is for gift by the constituent to a third party. The formation of the fiducie itself as well as the specific assets consisting fiduciary patrimony are subject to strict disclosure requirements under the centralized national registration system. In the event of insufficiency of the fiduciary patrimony, the fiducie creditors may look to the constituent`s patrimony as their common security, in general. For purposes of taxation, the fiducie is treated as neutral and the constituent(s) continues to be treated as the holder of the assets transferred to the fiduciare(s). Based upon the foregoing analysis, Part V concludes that the fiducie incorporated into the French Civil Code adopted an Anglo-American trust functionally. However the fiducie in its present form would be used only in the narrowest fields and also subject to the extreme restrictions imposed on the fiducie due to the fiscal considerations. Nonetheless, it is promising in that the French legislature has provided at the same time a comprehensive package of the statutes to facilitate the new institution, the fiducie(taxation, accounting, insolvency laws as well as the Civil Code), and has acted keenly to make up for the problems as it found them in the course of implementation of the fiducie.

미국(美國) 주회사법상(州會社法上) 기업인수규제입법(企業引受規制立法)

심인숙(In Sook Shim) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.2

「자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률」상 ‘투자계약증권’ 개념에 대한 검토 - 미국 연방증권법상 ‘투자계약’(investment contract)과의 비교법적 검토

심인숙(In-Sook Shim) 한국비교사법학회 2008 비교사법 Vol.15 No.1

  In August 2007, a new law, namely the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act(the “CMFIBA”), was legislated to become effective early 2009. The CMFIBA will introduce a comprehensive definition of “security” that encompasses the brand-new concept of “investment contract security”. Article 4(6) of the CMFIBA defines that the “investment contract security” means “an instrument evidencing contractual entitlement under which an investor invests money, etc. in a common enterprise with other person(including another investor) and profits and losses resulting from the common enterprise primarily run by other person belong to the investor.” Ministry of Finance and Economy of Korea that initially drafted the definitional provision declared that it intended to import the so called Howey test promulgated by the courts in the United States to interpret the meaning of the “investment contract” concept under U.S. federal securities laws. The purpose of this Article is to verify whether we may assume that the meaning of the “investment contract security” under the CMFIBA is identical with that of the “investment contract” under U.S. federal securities laws and, as a result, the Korean regulatory authorities and the courts may rely on the precedents and experience on the meaning and interpretation of the “investment contract” under U.S. federal securities laws, for their future construction and application of the CMFIBA provision.<BR>  Part Ⅱ of this article analyzes the “investment contract” concept under the U.S. federal statutes (i.e., Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934). “Investment contract” is not statutorily defined, rather it has been the task of the courts to define the concept. I focus on the Howey test that was first declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1946 and thereafter has been modified and supplemented by the subsequent court decisions. Under the Howey test as revised, an “investment contract” is a contract, arrangement, or scheme whereby a person invests money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits solely, or at least largely, from the efforts of other persons such as the promoter or some other third person. I also pay attention to the function of the Howey test as a criteria to determine whether the other types of instruments specifically listed under the federal statutes are securities. I argue that the Howey test is not a fixed criteria but has been subject to changes and it might face further changes or even an emergence of an alternative test.<BR>  Part Ⅲ of this article examines particular business relationships where the U.S. courts have dealt with the definitional issue of the “investment contract”, in order to enhance the understanding on how the Howey test works in the real world. Such areas include, among others, real estate or personalty transactions with management arrangements, partnerships, franchises and distributorship, employee benefit plans, discretionary security and commodity trading accounts and internet games.<BR>  In Part Ⅳ, I attempt to make comparative analysis of the CMFIBA and U.S. federal securities laws with respect to the meaning and function of the investment contract concept. Generally speaking, both the “investment contract security” under the CMFIBA and the “investment contract” under U.S. federal securities laws, as defined by the revised Howey test, consist of the same elements and, even though there exits discrepancies in the formulation of each element, are likely to resemble in their function as a criteria to determine whether a transaction should be treated as a security.<BR>  Therefore, in Part Ⅴ, I conclude that the Korean regulatory authorities and the courts may look to the precedents and experience of the United States legislature, judiciary and the regulatory body (SEC) with respect to the application of the “investment contract sec

미국 연방증권법상 ‘출자지분’(Equity Interests) - 소위 자본시장통합법상 ‘지분증권’ 개념과의 비교법적 검토

심인숙(In-Sook Shim) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.4

  To what extent should the regulation by the securities laws be justified in connection with equity financings by a business association? In 2006, Korean government announced that it will legislate a new law (so called “Capital Market Consolidation Law", hereinafter the “CMCL")that will have a sweeping effect on the capital market and financial industry in Korea and, which, among others, will introduce a comprehensive definition of “security" that encompasses “equity security", “Equity security" under the CMCL will include any equity interest in a business association, as well as “investment contract security" derived from the so called Howey test under U.S. federal securities laws. This article pays close attention to the prospect of increased regulation in the area of equity financing once the CMCL becomes in force and takes a critical view of such increased regulation.<BR>  Part Ⅱ of this article examines the criteria that U.S. federal courts have developed for determining whether an equity interest in a U.S. business association is a “security" for purposes of the U.S. federal statutes (i.e., Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934). With respect to any “stock" having the usual characteristics of common stock of a traditional corporation, the Supreme Court of U.S. established the per se rule in the companion cases of Landreth and Ruefenacht and, as a result of such holdings, such stock is deemed per se as a “security" for the purposes of the federal securities law. The lower federal courts have utilized the Howey test to determine whether instruments that are not specifically set forth in the statutory definition of the term “security" fall under the scope of the federal securities law, such as ownership interests in general partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies. Applying the Howey test (the fourth element of which has been the key determinant), the courts, relying on traditional notions of the roles that general and limited partners play within their respective firms, have held that a general partnership interest is presumed not to be an “investment contract" (e.g. the “Williamson presumption"), but a limited partnership interests is presumed to be an “investment contract" under the federal securities laws. As to interests in a relatively new business entity such as limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships, the courts have looked into the economic realities of situations on a case-by-case basis (primarily focusing on whether the interest holder actively participates in the management control or invests his money anticipating profits from the efforts of others).<BR>  Part Ⅲ of this article provides for the comparative analysis of U.S. federal securities law and the CMCL with respect to how each approach the question of determining equity interest that fall under its scope of regulation. Under the CMCL, almost all equity interests in any form of Korean business associations are defined to be per se “security" (especially in the cases of equity interests in the forms of business associations that are enumerated within the “equity security" definitional clause of the law). As a result, Korean courts would not be able to find a leeway to interpret the statutory definition of “security" in order to reflect the economic realities underlying each relevant transaction. In comparison, if we were to apply the “security" criteria that U.S. federal courts have developed to equity interest in various types of Korean business associations, we would find that only a small part of such equity interest will fall within the scope of “security" for the purposes of U.S. federal securities laws and the remaining categories of equity interests will not, or will be presumed not to, be treated as a “security".<BR>  Part Ⅳ of this article argues that although the proposed language of the CMCL creates a cle

스테이블코인의 안정화 메카니즘에 관한 법규제적 관점에서의 고찰

심인숙(Shim, In-Sook) 중앙법학회 2021 中央法學 Vol.23 No.4

가상통화의 극심한 가격변동성 문제에 대응하여 등장한 것이 소위 ‘스테이블코인(stablecoins)’인데, 기본적으로 “코인(coins)”이면서도 그 가치가 안정적이라는, 즉 “스테이블(stable)”하다는 장점을 ‘표방’하고 있다. 2014년 처음 등장한 이래 스테이블코인 시장은 급격히 확대되어 적어도 가상자산시장에서는 테더(USDT) 등 주요 스테이블코인이 법정화폐에 갈음하여 지급수단으로 이용되는 비중이 상당한 수준에 이르렀다. 특히 2019년 메타플랫폼(구 페이스북)이 스테이블코인 ‘디엠(구 리브라)’ 프로젝트를 발표하면서 가상자산시장을 넘어서 전세계에서 일반적으로 통용되는 지급수단으로 진화할 가능성까지 엿보게 되었다. 이에 세계 각국에서는 금융시스템의 안정성, 통화·금융정책, 경제력 집중, 불법적 수단으로 이용될 위험성 등 다양한 정책적 측면에서 스테이블코인이 끼치게 될 영향에 대한 관심과 우려가 제기되면서 그에 대응하기 위한 규제 필요성 논의가 활발하다. 이 글에서는 스테이블코인이 등장하게 된 근본적 원인이자 핵심적인 장점, 즉 ‘안정성’이 과연 ‘표방’한대로 확보되고 있는가라는 문제에 집중하여 법규제적 관점에서 이를 살펴보았다. 스테이블코인의 안정성 측면에 대한 규제입법이 없는 현재 상황에서 그 ‘안정성’을 보장하는 법제도적 장치는 없다. 기존 가상통화의 가격변동성 해결을 목적으로 고안된 “안정화 메카니즘(stabilization mechanism)”을 그 설계에 포함하고 있다는 점이 스테이블코인을 다른 가상통화와 구별짓는 필요적 요소이다. 아직까지는 스테이블코인의 안정화 메카니즘을 직접 제한하는 규제입법을 찾아보기 힘들므로, 시장의 수요와 코인 개발자의 아이디어에 따라 구체적인 디자인이 결정될 것이고 따라서 구체적인 안정화 메카니즘의 내용은 코인마다 설계하기에 따라서 달라질 것이다. 안정화 메카니즘의 성패는 ‘안정성’에 대한 신뢰를 줄 수 있는 방안을 고안해내고 실행하는가에 달려있고, 그 중핵에는 스테이블코인의 가치를 뒷받침할 준비자산(reserve assets)과 그에 관한 스테이블코인 보유자의 이익 보호가 있다. 안정성 여하는 어떻게 설계되었는지 또 실제 설계대로 운용되고 있는지에 따라 결정될 것이므로 코인마다 개별적으로 이를 판단하고 검증할 시스템을 마련할 필요가 있다. 현재로서는 설계와 실제 운용측면에서 모두 투명한 정보공개 자체가 미흡하여서 공개된 정보만으로는 구체적 설계 내용과 실제 운용 상황에 대한 판단과 검증 자체가 쉽지 아니하다. 스테이블코인 중 시가총액 1위인 테더(USDT)의 경우에서 조차도 미국 연방 감독당국 및 뉴욕주 검찰에서 준비자산과 관련한 허위표시를 문제 삼아 각기 거액의 벌과금을 부과한 사례가 있고, 이후 테더사측은 허위표시로 지적된 부분을 실제 운용사항에 부합하는 방향으로 수정하였으나 안정화 메카니즘의 설계 측면에서는 여전히 개선필요성이 지적되고 있다. 또한 메타플랫폼(구 페이스북)이 추진하고 있는 디엠(구 리브라) 프로젝트도 각국 감독당국의 우려를 반영하여 디엠코인 설계 자체를 대대적으로 수정하고 안정화 메카니즘을 보완하였지만 여전히 불명확하거나 충분한 정보가 공개되지 아니하여 의문을 갖게 하는 부분이 상당히 존재한다. 이러한 상황에서 최근 EU집행위원회는 암호자산에 대한 포괄적인 규제입법안(MiCA)을 의회에 제출하였는데 구체적인 규제틀을 제시하면서 스테이블코인의 안정화 메카니즘에 관련하여서도 상세한 법규정(안)을 제시하고 있다. 미국 행정부도 지급수단으로 이용되는 스테이블코인 시스템을 규제할 연방차원의 입법을 촉구하면서 입법 이전이라도 기존 법제도를 적용하여 강력한 조치를 취할 것을 주문하고 있다. 또한 G7, 금융안정위원회(FSB), 지급결제 및 시장인프라 위원회와 국제증권감독기구(CPMI-IOSCO), 자금세탁방지기구(FATF) 등 국제기구 차원에서도 글로벌 스테이블코인의 시스템적 중요성 등에 주목하고 기존의 규제틀을 적용하기 위한 구체적인 국제적 기준을 마련하려는 움직임이 활발하다. 한편 우리나라는 현재 가상자산시장을 규율하기 위한 10여개의 법률안이 국회에 계류되어 있으나, 스테이블코인에 특유한 문제점을 대상으로 하고 있는 법안은 눈에 띄지 아니한다. 전세계적으로 국경 없는 가상자산 거래의 현실에 비추어 국내 투자자 보호 차원에서는 물론이고 국제적 자본시장과 각국의 통화정책 등의 영향력을 감안할 때, 우리나라도 관심을 가지고 국제기구 차원의 국제적 기준 마련 과정에 적극 참여하는 한편 대내적으로도 관련 제도를 마련하기 위한 준비를 할 필요가 있다. In order to overcome extreme price volatility of many virtual currencies including Bitcoin(BTC), so-called “stablecoins” have emerged since 2014. The term ‘stablecoin’, even though not a legally defined one, commonly refers to a type of virtual assets designed to maintain a ‘stable’ value relative to some reference asset or basket of assets including fiat currencies. Every year the market capitalization and trading volume of stablecoins increase sharply, especially since mid-2020. Currently large stablecoins such as Tether(USDT) have become a means of payment to facilitate trading in and out of other virtual assets. Furthermore when Facebook(recently renamed as Meta Platforms) unveiled a project on its own stablecoin “Libra(later rebranded as Diem)” in 2019, governments, central banks and regulators have immediately raised a range of concerns related to the potential risks on the financial system, monetary policy, concentration of economic power, anti-competitive effects and illicit finance, based upon the expectation that Libra has the potential to be used widely across the border as a means of payment by households and businesses after launch far beyond the virtual assets market, and have sought regulatory frameworks to address those concerns on stablecoins. This Article does not cover all those policy-level concerns on stablecoins, instead it sticks to the question of whether the value of stablecoins is really or necessarily ‘stable’ as claimed from the regulatory point of view. In Part II, this Article examines the common attributes of the stabilization mechanism adopted by large stablecoins. As there is no legislation that directly regulates stablecoins with respect to their stability, there exists no regulatory system that assures the stability of stablecoins. Accordingly, it absolutely depends on each coin’s design and actual execution thereof whether the value of such coin will be stable as claimed or not. The specifics of one stablecoin would differ from another stablecoin depending upon its own coin design and contractual structures. However the author identifies the existence of a stabilization mechanism as an essential characteristic that distinguishes stablecoins from other types of virtual assets. Even though there is no uniform stabilization mechanism, many stablecoins offer a promise or expectation that the coin can be redeemed at par upon request and advertise that these coins are being supported or backed by a ‘reserve assets.’ The success or failure of a stablecoin will depend on holders’ confidence in the stablecoin issuer including the issuer’s ability to maintain a stable value and facilitate redemption structure through the prudent management of reserve assets. Stablecoin holders rights can also differ in the nature of the claim, whether a claim on the issuer or on the reserve assets, or no direct redemption rights to the coin holders, in reliance of the contractual structure and relevant laws. Therefore the question of stability must be answered for each stablecoin upon thorough analysis of its unique stabilization mechanism. Due to lack of transparency with respect to the information on such design and structure, it is practically difficult to do the necessary analysis for the regulatory authorities as well as coin holders. In Part III, this Article examines two cases where the issues on the stabilization mechanism matter: Tether(USDT) and Diem project. Tether, the world’s leading stablecoin by market capitalization, has represented that tether token is a stablecoin with its value pegged to a fiat currency and each of its tokens were backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars in reserve since its launch in 2014. However, according to New York Attorney General and CFTC, Tether misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts to customers and the market in connection with the reserve assets that have not always “fully-backed” every USDT in circulation with the equivalent amount of fiat currency

임신 제 2삼분기에 초음파로 진단된 Fetus in Fetu

심인숙 ( In Suk Shim ),이선아 ( Sun Ah Lee ),박미혜 ( Mi Hye Park ),박은애 ( Eun Ae Park ),김영주 ( Young Ju Kim ),최금자 ( Gum Ja Choe ),안정자 ( Jung Ja Ahn ),김종일 ( Jong Il Kim ),전선희 ( Sun Hee Chun ) 대한산부인과학회 2007 Obstetrics & Gynecology Science Vol.50 No.4

Fetus in fetu is an very rare condition in which a vertebrate fetus is incorporated within its twin. Although a number of cases were reported at 3rd trimester of gestation or postnatally, the authors present a retroperitoneal fetus in fetu with 9×7×6 cm sized cystic mass that was diagnosed at 2nd trimester using ultrasonography and confirmed on a computed tomography scan after birth. The mass was successfully excised postnatally and consistent with a fetus in fetu by pathological confirmation. Solid mass was surrounded by a fluid-containing sac and showed highly ordered organogenesis around an axial vertebral column.

난소난관농양에서 혈청 CA 125의 임상적 의의

심인숙 ( In Suk Shim ),정혜원 ( Hye Won Chung ),안정자 ( Jung Ja Ahn ),문혜성 ( Hye Sung Moon ) 대한산부인과학회 2008 Obstetrics & Gynecology Science Vol.51 No.4

목적: 난소난관농양 환자의 혈청 CA 125를 포함한 ESR, CRP 수치 및 초음파 소견과 그 외 영향을 미치는 인자들을 조사, 분석하여 난소난관농양의 진단 및 수술적 중재 여부를 예측하고 추적검사를 할 수 있는 지표로서의 유용성을 알아보고자 하였다. 방법: 난소난관농양으로 입원한 총 65예의 난소난관농양 환자 중 보존적 치료에 성공한 29예를 보존적 치료군으로 설정하였고, 보존적 치료에 실패하여 침습적인 치료를 추가한 36예를 수술적 치료군으로 설정하였다. 연구 대상자들의 의무기록을 검토하여 후향적 연구를 시행하였다. 결과: 입원 시 측정한 혈청 CA 125를 비롯한 ESR, 농양의 크기는 난소난관농양의 치료에서 수술적 중재 여부 예측에 의미 있는 인자로 나타났다. 난소난관농양의 수술적 중재를 결정짓는 진단적 가치가 높은 인자는 ESR, 농양의 크기, CA 125순이며 이들의 새로운 양성 기준은 각각 36.5 mm/h, 4.2 cm, 68.3 U/ml이었다. CA 125 및 ESR의 민감도는 중증으로 진행된 병변에서 유의하게 증가하여 중증의 진행된 병변에서 진단적 가치가 있었다. 임상 경과의 추적 지표로서 CRP는 10일 내에 치료 경과 판정을 위한 추적검사로서 의의가 있으나 CA 125가 정상화되기까지 소요된 시간은 평균 51.5일로 CA 125는 단기간의 추적검사로서 부적절하다고 나타났다. 결론: 난소난관농양에서 CA 125, ESR 및 농양의 크기는 수술적 중재를 결정짓는 예측 인자이고 CA 125 및 ESR은 중증의 진행된 병변에서 진단적 가치가 있으나 CA 125는 임상 경과에 대한 단기간의 추적 지표로서 부적절함을 알 수 있다. 이를 바탕으로 난소난관농양의 진단 및 치료 기준안을 만들고 이에 따라 치료와 추적 검사를 시행한다면 치료 실패율을 현저히 낮추고 합병증과 재발을 줄이게 될 것이다. Objective: The aim of this study is to measure the serum levels of CA 125, ESR and CRP in patients with tubo-ovarian abscess (TOA) before and after treatment of abscess and to assess the usefulness of CA 125 in the diagnosis, prediction of the outcome of TOA treatment and clinical follow-up of patient`s condition. Methods: This retrospective study included 65 patients with TOA. Serum CA 125, ESR, CRP and WBC counts were measured. The treatment was done conservatively with antibiotics. The patients were divided into two groups: those with successful results into group 1 (29 cases) and those with unsuccessful results into group 2 (36 cases). If treatment was considered to be unsuccessful, surgical intervention was additionally performed. Results: The serum levels of CA 125, ESR and abscess size on admission in group 2 were significantly higher than in group 1. ESR, abscess size and CA 125 in order were valuable predictive factors affecting the success of medical treatment. And the new cutoff value was 36.5 mm/h, 4.2 cm and 68.3 U/ml, respectively. The sensitivity rate of CA 125, ESR levels was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1. Although CRP was decreased significantly 10 days after treatment, the serum CA 125 was not decreased significantly. And it took 51.5 days for CA 125 to be normalized after the initiation of treatment. Conclusions: The serum CA125, ESR levels and abscess sizes are predictive factors affecting the success of medical treatment of abscess treatment. And CA 125 and ESR are useful for diagnosing severity of disease. But serum CA 125 level is an inappropriate marker for monitoring short-term efficacy of treatment.

파산절차상(破産節次上) 공적채권(公的債權)의 우선변제권(優先辨濟權)

심인숙(In Sook Shim) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.1

개정 상법상 이사회와 집행임원간의 권한 분배

심인숙(In Sook Shim) 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.4

The Korean Commercial Code(the “KCC”) has introduced the “executive officer system”(the “System”) into the governance structure of a chusikheusa (the “a corporation”) through the amendments thereto effective beginning April 15, 2012. It has been anticipated that the System would resolve the legal problems and uncertainties involving the so called “non-registered officers” that in practice a number of corporations have employed since the financial crisis in late 1990`s when listed corporations began to be obliged to elect certain number of independent directors. While few corporations actually adopted the System yet, recently Korean government suggested a legislative proposal for public discussion to turn the System into a mandatory regime with respect to a corporation having an audit committee within its board of directors(including large listed corporations). This article purports to analyze the way in which the KCC separates power between the board of directors(BOD) and executive officer(s) and to verify whether it successfully serves the legislative aims on the System. Part II of this article goes through the scope of the powers of the BOD of a corporation not having an executive officer and the structure of the separation of power between the BOD and a representative director(including other officers), in order to compare such scheme with that of a corporation having an executive officer(s). Part III of this article first analyzes the framework of the KCC provisions regarding the management power under the System. Secondly it examines scope of the powers of the BOD of a corporation having an executive officer(s) and the structure of the separation of power between the BOD and its chief executive officer. Then the author focuses on the powers of executive officers under the System, consisting of the execution power and decision-making power. She points out that there still exist uncertainties involving the interpretation and application of the KCC provisions, among others, with respect to the exclusivity of the execution power of the executive officers and the permissible scope of the delegation of decision-making power by the BOD. Finally she emphasizes that the KCC needs further refinements not only to lift those uncertainties but also to enlarge the permissible scope of the delegation of decision-making power by the BOD. She suggests concrete guidelines for such refinements and specifically enumerates the kind of powers to be resorted. Based upon the foregoing analysis, Part IV concludes that the separation of power issue needs reconsideration so that the System works as anticipated, and summarizes the specific proposals for further amendments to the KCC regarding this issue.

미국 연방증권법상 증권(Security) 개념

심인숙(In Sook Shim) 중앙법학회 2006 中央法學 Vol.8 No.2