금융중개기관을 통해 유가증권을 간접보유하는 투자자의 법적 지위 = A Legal Status of Investors Holding Securities Indirectly through Financial Intermediary

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2002

2 증권예탁결제원, "증권예탁결제제도" 증권예탁원 2003

3 김건식, "증권거래법(제4판)" 두성사 2006

4 장영수, "주요국의 유가증권 보유방식과 투자자의 권리" 증권예탁결제원 (60) : 2006

5 허항진, "전자증권제도의 현황과 법적 과제" 충북대법학연구소 18 (18): 2007

6 강희만, "유가증권대체결제제도" 육법사 1989

7 서? 민, "예탁유가증권의 민사법적 법률문제" 한국비교사법학회 3 (3): 1996

8 장근영, "영미법상 신인의무법리와 이사의 지위" 한국비교사법학회 15 (15): 2008

9 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2006

10 김건식, "미국의 예탁결제제도" 한국비교사법학회 3 (3): 1996

11 허항진, "국제적 증권거래의 결제에 관한 법적 연구-우리나라 국제증권결제제도의 법적 안정성 및 국제정합성 제고방안을 중심으로-" 서울대학교 2007

12 천창민, "국제적 유가증권거래의 준거법" 한국국제사법학회 (10) : 2004

13 석광현, "국제사법과 국제소송(제4판)" 박영사 2007

14 中島眞志, "證券決濟システムのすべて" 東洋經濟新報社 2002

15 金融法委員會, "證券の振替決濟にかかる法制に關する中間論点整理について" (1557) : 2000

16 橫山淳, "株券電子化のしくみと對應策" 日本實業出版社 2006

17 森田宏樹, "有價證券のペ―ペ―レス化の基礎理論, 日本銀行金融硏究所(Discussion???? Paper Series No. 2006-J-23)" 2006

18 田中實, "改訂信託法" 學陽書房 1998

19 森下哲朗, "國際證券決濟法制の展開と課題" 47 (47): 2004

20 森下哲朗, "國際的證券振替の法的課題(三)" 45 (45): 2003

21 森下哲朗, "國際的證券振替の法的課題(一)" 44 (44): 2000

22 "Uniform Commercial Code : Official Text and Comments" 2005

23 김이수, "UCC상 증권권리(securities entitlement)의 개념" 한국증권법학회 5 (5): 2004

24 IOSCO, "Towards a Legal Framework for Clearing and Settlement in Emerging Markets(November 1997)" 1997

25 Jurgen Than, "The Preliminary Draft UNIDROIT Convention and Capital Market Practice in Germany, Uniform Law Review 2005-1/2" 2005

26 Roy Goode, "The Nature and Transfer of Rights in Dematerialised and Immobilised Securities, The Future for the Global Securities Market : Legal and Regulatory Aspects" Clarendon Press 1996

27 Joanna Benjamin, "The Law of Global Custody(2nd ed.)" Butterworths 2002

28 PD Finn, "The Fiduciary Principle, Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts, Carswell Legal Pubns" 1989

29 Roy Goode, "Security Entitlements as Collateral and Conflict of Laws" 22 : 1998

30 Canadian Securities Administrator’s Uniform Securities Transfer Act Task Force, "Proposal for Modernized Uniform Law in Canada Governing the Holding, Transfer and Pledging of Securities”, Consultation Paper" 2004

31 UNIDROIT, "Preliminary Draft Convention on Harmonized Substantive Rules Regarding Securities Held with an Intermediary-Explanatory Notes" 2004

32 James Steven Rogers, "Policy Perspectives on Revised UCC Article 8, 43 UCLA Law Review 1431" 1996

33 Bank for International Settlements, "Payment and Settlement Systems in Selected?Countries" 2003

34 Eva Micheler, "Modernizing Securities Settlement in the UK" Company? Lawyer 2002

35 Dorthee Einsele, "Modernizing German Law : Can the UNIDROIT Project on Intermediated Securities Provide Guidance?, Uniform Law Review 2005-1/2" 2005

36 Hideki Kanda, "Legal rules on Indirectly Held Investment Securities : the Japanese Situation, Uniform Law Review 2005-1/2" 2005

37 Mentha, "Legal Risks Associated with Acting as a Global Custodian-Mitigating the Risks" 2000

38 DJ. Hayton, "Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees(15th ed.)" Butterworth-Heinemann 1995

39 G. Williams, "Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence : A Study of Concurrent Faults in Great Britian" Ireland and Common Law Dominions 1951

40 Mohamed F. Khimji, "Intermediary Credit Risk-A Comparative Law Analysis of Property Rights in Indirectly Held Securities" 2005

41 Joanna Benjamin, "Interests in Securities : A Proprietary Law?Analysis of the International Securities Markets" Oxford University Press 2000

42 Nicholas Papaspayrou, "Immobilisation of Securities : Part 2 - Personal Right of Indirect Holders" 11 (11): 1996

43 Nicholas Papaspayrou, "Immobilisation of Securities : Part 1 - Property Right Indirect Holders" 11 (11): 1996

44 UNIDROIT, "Explanatory Notes to the Preliminary Draft UNIDROIT Convention on Harmonized Substantive Rules regarding Securities Held with an Intermediary, Uniform Law Review 2005-1/2, at 70" 2005

45 I Brown, "David Loyalties in the Law of Agency, 109 Law Quarterly Review 206(1993)" 1993

46 Joanna Benjamin, "Custody-An English Law Analysis, Part 1" 1998

47 A. O. Austen-Peters, "Custody of Investments-Law and Practice" Oxford University Press 2000

48 Richard Potok, "Cross Border Collateral : Legal Risk and the Conflict of Laws" Butterworths 2002