http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
채무면제·유예상품의 교훈을 통한 소비자신용보험 활용방안
하상석 한국상사법학회 2019 商事法硏究 Vol.38 No.3
Consumer Credit Insurance is one in which the insured are debtors while surety insurance or credit insurance has creditors as the insured. Therefore consumer credit insurance has three advantages like protection of debtors, risk management of financial companies, and promotion of social welfare. The insurance may control the systemic risk in financial industry because it can erase the debt thoroughly through insurance hedging from the beginning of the chain. Particularly in South Korea, there are controversies about inequalities from inheriting wealth, predatory lending and money collection, or the like. The advantages of debt relief from consumer credit insurance can counter balance those inequalities. However, even though South Korea has a long history of consumer credit insurance, the insurance has not been vitalized thank to financial companiesʼ hesitation and financial consumerʼs negative perception. So we need to invigorate the insurance advantages through imposition of duty on creditor companies to notify debtors of the right to be exempted from the debt through insurance coverage. Also we need to offer financial companies revenue model like compulsory group consumer credit insurance. There is another barrier to stop activating the insurance, which is the legal restriction to prohibit financial companies from providing both insurance and loan simultaneously. We need to make an exception in the case of consumer credit insurance because it is to protect debtors, not creditors. There are other things to consider trying to vitalize the insurance. We need to note it has a nature that its advantages easily disappear by financial companiesʼ greedy. We have already observed many cases of failures to take advantages of the insurance in many countries. Especially South Korea has recently seen the failure of Debt Cancellation or Debt Suspension Contract. From the lessons of the failure, we need to prudently give shape to the regulating regime. 소비자신용보험은 채무자를 피보험자로 하는 보험으로서 채권자 위주의 위험담보에서 탈피하여 채무자를 적극적으로 보호할 수 있는 장점을 가지고 있다. 또한 소비자신용보험은 대출채권의 부실화 위험을 최초의 채권관계에서부터 회피할 수 있기 때문에 고도화되고 있는 금융상품 간의 연쇄적 붕괴위험을 사전에 차단할 수 있는 장점도 가진다. 그러나 소비자신용보험은 우리나라에서 짧지 않은 역사를 가지고 있음에도 불구하고 금융회사의 무관심과, 소비자의 인식부족 등으로 제대로 활용되지 못하고 있다. 경제적 불평등의 문제가 논란의 중심이 되고 있는 한국 사회에서 소비자신용보험의 장점을 잘 발현시키는 것만으로도 대안제시가 될 수 있다는 점에서 그 활용이 절실한 상황이다. 아무리 많은 장점을 가진 금융상품이라도 그 운용에 있어 적절한 통제가 가해지지 않는다면 예상치 못한 결과를 초래할 수 있다. 특히 대출채권자와 대출채무자라는 경제력의 우열은 자율적 계약의 공정성을 담보할 수 없게 만든다. 우리나라는 소비자신용보험과 유사한 기능을 가진 채무면제·유예상품의 운용을 금융회사의 자율에 맡긴 결과 그들의 수익모델로 전락시키고 만 경험을 가지고 있다. 경제적 약자 보호라는 고유의 목적에 부합하는 제도로 발전시키기 위해서는 활성화 방안과 더불어 선제적 규제가 필수적이다. 소비자신용보험의 활용을 위한 금융기관 유인책으로 단체소비자신용보험의 강제화, 소비자신용보험을 담보로 한 대출의 위험가중치 하향조정, 담보인정비율(LTV)의 적용완화, 악성다중채무자에 대한 소비자신용보험료 지원, 보증·신용보험과 소비자신용보험의 패키지상품개발 등을 고려해볼 수 있다. 그리고 금융소비자의 인식 개선을 위해, 소비자신용보험가입자에 대한 대출이자의 인하, 소비자신용보험가입자를 대상으로 파산, 회생, 신용회복을 위한 절차의 간소화, 대출상품 판매시 소비자신용보험에 대한 설명의무 부과 등의 방안을 고려할 수 있다. 소비자신용보험의 운용상 폐해를 막기 위해 최저보상율과 적정최대보험요율의 확정, 비적격자의 보험가입금지, 대출금상환 등의 경우 보험의 강제종료, 대출변경 등의 사유발생시 보험회사와 공유할 의무부과, 단체소비자신용보험의 경우 채무자에게 통지할 의무부과, 위반시 제재조항 등과 같은 조치를 마련하여야 한다.
연구 논문 : 금융산업의 시스템위험방지를 위한 국제적 규제방안에 대한 검토
하상석 ( Sang Soek Ha ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2011 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구 Vol.3 No.1
The characters of international financial markets had been the liberalization of banking and deregulation. However, they had amplified the systemic risk in the financial industries. We was confronted with the Sub-prime mortgage financial crisis in the end. We also have struggles against the financial crisis till quite recently. The financial crisis of 2008 has made a worldwide issue of hot debates to reform financial regulatory system, which is to secure financial soundness and sustainable growth against systemic risks. In this paper I focus on the issues on the systemic risk in all of them. For this purpose, first of all I try to define the systemic risk over which there are lots of controversies. Systemic risk in this paper is defined as the risk of which ① from the trigger events of an institutions` default or unknown economic shocks, ② through interrelationships of financial institutions or a chain of markets, ③ the result is a failure of financial system or volatility in the cost of capital. Then for regulating the systemic risk, I classify the possible regulations for not the systemic important financial institutions but market participants. There are two paths to regulate the systemic risk; regulating institutional relationship and a chain of markets. So that it may be efficient to regulate the systemic risk, both paths should be the way to regulate it. According to the way, we can adopt several regulations such as the capital adequacy regulation, averting panics, financial exposure limits, reducing leverage, ensuring liquidity. Finally I reviews the recently international approach to regulate the systemic risk through the above regulations.
영국의 과실책임상 정신적 충격에 의한 손해배상에 관한 연구:힐스버러 축구장 판례를 중심으로
정용환,하상석 동아대학교 법학연구소 2023 東亞法學 Vol.- No.101
The common law system has framed the intentional and the negligence torts, developing its torts laws. In addition, new developing concepts, such as the strict liablitity theory and neisance, were continuously supplemented. The development process of torts is replenishing a lack of coverage of damages that could not be enough to be covered by the intentional and negligence torts. For example, there were some damages that could be compensated by the traditional tort laws, such as strict liability causing a damage without a defendent’s negligence and psychiatric shock without a physical damage. First, the concept of nusance was widely applicable to figure out the damage caused by no-fault liability regardless the defendant’s negligence. Second, the theories of the intentional and negligence torts has widely applied to to solve the mental damage. To apply to the Intentional infliction of emotional distress, it lowers a defendant’s substantial knowledge to bring into the his or her outcomes. In the psychiatric shock in negligenc, it expanded not only the primary victim but also the secondary victim of the psychiatric shock in McLoughlin v. O’Brian. The British judiciary did not accept the psychiatric damage that was not accompanied by physical injury because they concerned a floodgate based on fear of claims. However, they gradually recognized the necessity of mental damage, applying to the elements of negligence. Then, the victim could be categorized under the elements of negligence. the victim’s psychiatric shock could be compensated when it could be reasonably foreseeable. However, there is a clear limitation that the psychiatric shock could be recognized when it was not accompanied by physical injury. After it attempted to define the distinction between the primary and secondary victims, it required the proximity in time and space to the event and close ties of love for secondary victim. This paper reviews the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury to extend to personal injury that was developed by the British judiciary and analyses cases related with the disaster in 1989 at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield, UK., regarding some restrictions to recovery of the psychiatric shock.