민간투자사업 수요위험 분담 방식에 관한 연구

신성환,Shin, Sung-Hwan 한국건설관리학회 2012 한국건설관리학회 논문집 Vol.13 No.2

민간투자사업의 핵심 성공요인은 민간사업자와 정부 간의 적절한 위험 분담과 민간사업자가 부담하는 위험 대비 적절한 수익의 제공이다. 현재 국내 민간투자사업은 민간사업자가 대부분의 위험을 부담하는 수익형 민자사업(BTO)과 정부가 대부분의 위험을 부담하는 임대형 민자사업(BTL)로 구분되어 있을 뿐, 정부와 민간사업자가 위험을 다양한 형태로 분담하는 방식은 아직 도입되어 있지 않은 상태이다. 이 결과 도로, 항만 등 수익형 민간투자사업 방식으로 진행되는 사업에 대한 과다한 위험부담으로 인해 민간사업자의 수익형 민간투자사업에의 참여가 극도로 저조한 상황이다. 본 연구에서는 민간투자사업 위험 중 가장 큰 위험인 수요위험(demand risk)을 정부와 민간사업자가 분담하는 새로운 방식의 민간투자사업을 살펴보고자 한다. 보다 구체적으로 본 연구에서는 민간투자사업의 운영수입을 모두 정부에 귀속시킨 후 운영수입 수준에 따라 민간사업자에게 계단형으로 지급되는 방식을 살펴보고자 한다. 민간사업자가 부담하는 위험 대비 적절한 수준의 정부지급금을 실물옵션 모형 및 위험중립적(risk neutral) 방법론을 통해 산출하고, 산출된 구간별 정부지급금에 반영된 사업수익률을 추정하고자 한다. 본 연구에서 사용한 방법론 및 결과는 향후 국내에 다양한 방식의 민간투자사업이 도입되는데 도움을 줄 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 민간이 제시하는 다양한 방식에 대한 평가 기준을 설정하는데 도움을 줄 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. One of key success factors in PPI(Public Private Investment) is the structure of risk sharing between the public and the private, and the determination mechanism of fair return to private participants relative to the risk that private participants undertake. In Korea, two basic types of PPI exist. One is BTO and the other is BTL. In BTO, most risks are taken by the private whereas the opposite is the case in BTL. No intermediate form exists. As a result, BTO type projects had difficulty in attracting private participants because of the excessive risks. In this study, one intermediate form is studied where demand risk is shared between the public and the private. In the setting where the public authority takes all the project revenues and then pays ladder type payments to private participants depending upon the level of project revenues, appropriate level of fixed payments is endogenously derived using the real option pricing model. From the fixed payments, expected investment returns are calculated based upon a certain distributional assumption. The results of this study is expected to help introducing diverse forms of PPI in Korea.

고차적률위험과 주식 수익률의 횡단면

심명화 ( Myounghwa Sim ) 명지대학교 금융지식연구소 2018 금융지식연구 Vol.16 No.1

본 연구는 국내 주식시장에서 변동성, 왜도, 첨도위험이 개별 주식 수익률의 횡단면적 차이를 설명하는 가격결정요인인지 실증 분석한다. 주요 발견은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 변동성위험 민감도가 가장 높은 포트폴리오가 다른 포트폴리오들에 비해 수익률이 유의하게 높다. 둘째, 변동성베타와 수익률의 양의 관계는 기업특성을 통제한 후에도 일관되게 나타난다. 마지막으로, 왜도 및 첨도 민감도는 주식 수익률의 횡단면을 유의하게 설명하지 못한다. 국내 주식 시장에서 고차적률위험이 공통위험으로서 주식 수익률의 횡단면을 설명할 수 있는지 살펴본 첫 번째 연구라는 점, 시장변동성, 시장왜도 및 시장첨도를 역사적 추정치가 아닌 주가지수 옵션 가격에 내재된 위험중립분포에서 추정한다는 점에서 본 연구는 기존 연구와 차별되는 기여가 있다. I investigate whether exposure to risk captured by high moments of market returns can explain the cross-section of stock returns, where the moments are estimated from daily KOSPI 200 index option data. I find evidence that stocks with high exposure to innovations in option-implied market volatility earn low returns on average, which suggests that market-wide volatility risk is priced in the cross-section of stock returns. Contrastingly, I find no evidence that stocks with different exposures to innovations in market skewness or kurtosis exhibit different average returns. Either skewness or kurtosis premium is not significant in the Korean stock market.

방조범에 있어서의 ‘한계 설정’의 문제에 관하여 : Winny 사건을 소재로 하여

도요타카네히코,이소희 이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원 2014 Ewha Law Review Vol.4 No.1

지금까지 논의되어 왔던 중립적 행위에 의한 방조는 ‘1대 1’의 거래행위를 전제로 한 것이었다. 본고의 소재가 되는 Winny 사건은 ‘1대 불특정다수인’의 거래행위가 문제되는 것으로, 파일 공유 프로그램인 Winny를 제공받은 자 각각의 이용 상황뿐 아니라, 불특정다수인 ‘전체’의 이용 상황이 고려되어야 한다. 여기에서 프로그램 제공자의 방조범 성립의 한계를 설정하는 문제가 발생하게 된다. 본고에서는 Winny 사건의 제1심 판결, 항소심 판결, 최고재판소 판결을 검토하여 각 판결에서 방조범의 성립의 한계를 어떻게 설정하고 있는지 살펴볼 것이다. 또한, 한계의 설정에 ‘전체적 고찰’이 이루어지는지 여부와 ‘전체적 고찰’의 구체적인 내용이 무엇인지 대하여도 검토해 볼 것이다. 결국, 핵심은 전체적 고찰의 기준이 되는 ‘예외적이라고는 할 수 없는 범위’를 어떻게 해석할 것인지, 또 그 이론적 근거가 무엇인가 하는 것이 될 것이다. 그 이론적 근거로서 ‘위험의 중심’이라는 개념이 등장한다.

미국의 근로자재해보상제도의 보상책임구조와 업무상 재해의 요건 : Requirements of Work Connected Injury

김소영 한국노동법학회 2004 노동법학 Vol.0 No.18

In this article, I present the current regime of American workers' compensation law with respect to the requirement of work - connected injury, and suggest the direction of construction which could extent the coverage of workers' compensation in modem work connected injury cases of Korea. In any country, there have been difficulties in fixing and defining the boundaries of coverage. In the U.S., coverage problems have been solved by the approach toward the risk inquiry developing various doctrines aimed at defining the scope of the risk, e.g., the "positional risk" doctrine. The positional risk doctrine is the most liberal of the scope of the risk theories, because the only inquiry under a positional risk theory is whether an injury arises out of the employment placed if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed employee in the position where he or she was injured: One's employment was responsible for one's being at the time and place where an injury occurred. Even the most neutral of risks which are the cause of a great deal of conflict and confusion can be included. Also, a liberal construction should be given to the definitions of employer and employees because of the objectives of workers' compensation and the need to make coverage as expansive as possible. The modern tendency is to find employment when the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer, and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service. This "relative nature of the work" test, not only is it more modern than the "right to control test," it is believed to be more realistic test in terms of the objectives of the workers' compensation law. The purpose of the workers' compensation law as set forth in its title, is to provide financial and medical benefits to the victims of work connected injuries and promote the welfare of the employees. Moreover, the rapidity of technical development and invironmental change in current society place workers in a greater exposure to a risk. In light of the objectives and policies of workers' Compensation a much broader approach should be taken in the construction of requirements of work connected injury. Therefore, with respect to the requirements of work connected injury I propose a direction of construction which consists of adopting "positional risk" doctrine and "relative nature of the work" test in order to extent the coverage.

전자감시 장치의 범죄예방 효과성(effectiveness)에 대한 비판적 검토

류준혁 ( Jun Hyuk Ryu ) 한국경찰학회 2010 한국경찰학회보 Vol.12 No.4

Recently, criminal justice system in South Korea has experienced racial changes. One of the most radical changes is the introducing electronic monitoring system. However, the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in scientific aspects was not proved yet. There are various threats to internal validity. Especially, low recidivism in sex crime may be caused by selection bias, short risk periods, history, and excessive organizational effort. Therefore, we cannot assure that electronic monitoring system cause low recidivism in sex crime. More serious problem is that the Ministry of Justice is widely applying the result of study with low internal validity to other types of crimes. In order to get scientific evidence based policy, the Ministry of Justice should conduct the quasi experiment or experiment study, adopt transparent study process, and finally conduct objective and neutral study.

김유성 교수 정년기념호 : 논문 ; 대안적(代案的) 분쟁해결제도(ADR)의 경제학 -환경분쟁조정제도에 대한 평가를 중심으로-

조홍식 ( Hong Sik Cho ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2006 서울대학교 法學 Vol.47 No.1

When individuals need to resolve their disputes with other individuals, they may often go not only to courts for trial but also to alternative methods of dispute resolution (ADR). Drawing upon a few recent studies, this article provides some economic explanation about why individuals make use of ADR instead of trial and/or settlement. By examining what the social interest is in ADR, it also provides a useful reference point by which one can evaluate the ADR system the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act has developed to cope with complicated environmental disputes. Part I begins with defining the characteristics of environmental disputes that make environmental litigation less frequent. Due to the tendency of under-litigation involving environmental disputes, ADR is particularly needed for environmental disputes. An ADR system aiming at environmental disputes needs to be designed so as to i) minimize the total cost of resolving disputes, and simultaneously ii) to engage as many parties involved as possible and make an ideal communication structure where the parties involved can provide each other with the relevant information(Part II). Part III looks over the cost structure of ADR. The dispute resolution costs of ADR consist of ADR-using cost(operation cost) and misjudgment cost(error cost). To save the former, it is necessary to trade off the latter. Accordingly, an ideal ADR system must be such that the sum of both can be minimized. In general, ADR brings about less operation costs than a trial before the courts. Therefore the success of ADR depends upon how much it can minimize error costs. If one can design an ideal communication structure in ADR process, it may also help lower error costs. Part IV specifies ADR`s institutional elements necessary to cope successfully with environmental disputes. Drawing upon the findings of Part III and IV, Part V evaluates the current ADR system established by the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act.

代案的 紛爭解決制度(ADR)의 經濟學 - 環境紛爭調停制度에 대한 評價를 中心으로

趙弘植(Hong-Sik Cho) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.1

  When individuals need to resolve their disputes with other individuals, they may often go not only to courts for trial but also to alternative methods of dispute resolution (“ADR”). Drawing upon a few recent studies, this article provides some economic explanation about why individuals make use of ADR instead of trial and/or settlement. By examining what the social interest is in ADR, it also provides a useful reference point by which one can evaluate the ADR system that the “Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act” has developed to cope with complicated environmental disputes.<BR>  Part Ⅰ begins with defining the characteristics of environmental disputes that make environmental litigation less frequent. Due to the tendency of “under-litigation” involving environmental disputes, ADR is particularly needed for environmental disputes. An ADR system aiming at environmental disputes needs to be designed so as to i) minimize the total cost of resolving disputes, and simultaneously ii) to engage as many parties involved as possible and make an ideal communication structure where the parties involved can provide each other with the relevant information(Part Ⅱ). Part Ⅲ looks over the cost structure of ADR. The dispute resolution costs of ADR consist of ADR-using cost(“operation cost”) and misjudgment cost(“error cost”). To save the former, it is necessary to trade off the latter. Accordingly, an ideal ADR system must be such that the sum of both can be minimized. In general, ADR brings about less operation costs than a trial before the courts. Therefore the success of ADR depends upon how much it can minimize error costs. If one can design an ideal communication structure in ADR process, it may also help lower error costs. Part Ⅳ specifies ADR"s institutional elements necessary to cope successfully with environmental disputes. Drawing upon the findings of Part Ⅲ and Ⅳ, Part Ⅴ evaluates the current ADR system established by the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act.

방조범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속

원형식(Won, Hyung-Sig) 한국형사법학회 2009 형사법연구 Vol.21 No.3

Die Ergebnisse voliegender Untersuchung über die Kausalität und objektive Zurechnung bei der Beihilfe lassen sich folgendermaßen zusammenzufassen: Nach der Konzeption der Teilnahme als 'Rechtsgutsangriff durch akzessorische Verursachung' besteht das Unrecht der Teilnahme nicht nur in akzessorischen Elementen, also Verursachung des Täterunrechts, sonder auch in selbständigen Elementen, also Rechtsgutsangriff. Die Kausalität der Beihilfe ist danach festzustellen, ob der ‘konkrete' Erfolg ohne den Gehilfenbeitrag entfallen wäre. Somit ist die hypothetische Kausalverlauf auf Kausalität der Beihilfe ohne Einfluß. Nach dem Grundsatz der objektiven Zurechnung muß der Gehilfe durch seinen Beitrag ein unerlaubtes Risiko für das Opfer geschaffen haben. Deswegen kann eine 'erfolgsneutrale Handlung', die kein Risiko für das Opfer erhöht, nicht Beihilfe sein. Die Strafbarkeit von Beihilfe durch 'neutrale Handlung' hängt davon ab, ob sie einen 'deliktischen Sinnbezug' aufweist. Wenn sie keinen 'deliktischen Sinnbezug' aufweist, muß die objektive Zurechnung nach dem Prinzip des erlaubten Risikos ausgeschlossen werden. Zuerst ist ein deliktischer Sinnbezug gegeben, wenn der Teilnehmer zwecks Verursachung der Haupttat ein Sonderverhalten vornimmt. In den Fällen, indenen er mit dolus directus eine deliktische Handlung unterstützt, liegt ein deliktischer Sinnbezug vor, wenn der fördernde Beitrag ohne die strafbare Handlungen des Täters für ihn keinen Sinn mehr hat. In den Fällen von dolus eventualis ist die Haupttat nach dem Vertrauensgrundsatz dem Gehilfen nicht zuzurechnen, soweit es sich nicht um eine Förderung eines erkennbar tatgeneigten Täters handelt.