Strain induced structural transformation, mechanical and phonon stability in silicene derived 2D-SiB

Manju M.S.,Siby Thomas,Anees P.,Sang Uck Lee,Ajith K. M. 한국공업화학회 2020 Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Vol.90 No.-

Two-dimensional monolayer SiB is a silicene derivative exhibiting buckling of atoms similar to that seenin silicene. This manuscript presents a systematic study of the strain-dependent variation of thestructural, mechanical, and dynamical properties of SiB. Strain was applied in the uniaxial armchair,uniaxial zigzag, and biaxial directions within the range of0.2 to 0.3. The resultant strain energy plotindicates anisotropic behavior of SiB in these directions. The SiB showed a mechanical strength that washigher than its counterpart, silicene, by an order of 30%. The elastic constant data from the undeformedSiB indicated an anisotropic nature, which was also seen with all the strain directions. Charge densitycontours, along with Bader charge analysis, confirmed the ionic nature of SiB in its original form. Thisnature became covalent as the strain varied from the compressive to the tensile regime in the uniaxialzigzag and biaxial directions. The majorfinding described in this manuscript is a newflat conformationhaving orthorhombic symmetry in contrast to the buckled structure. In addition, this material wasobserved to attain stability with the application of uniaxial tensile armchair and zigzag directionalstrains. Ab-initio molecular dynamics simulation confirmed the thermal stability of SiB in its newconformation.

정상화·정리계획(RRP) 제도의 효과적인 국내 도입 방향에 대한 연구

윤성현 ( Yun Sunghyun ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2019 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구 Vol.11 No.2

In the wake of 2008 global financial crisis, the international community led by the G20 and the Financial Stability Board introduced a new resolution regime called “the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions.” Since then, the Korean government has designated the D-SIBs and announced a plan that it would introduce the Recovery and Resolution Planning regime. A reform bill was recently proposed to introduce the RRP requirements by amending the Act on the Structural Improvement of Financial Industry, in short ASIFI, a law that governs the special resolution regime for financial institutions. This bill is now under review by the Parliament of Korea. In keeping with the FSB’s recommendation, the SIFIs are required to write plans and submit them to the Financial Supervisory Service after they are notified of their SIFI designation. On the other hand, resolution plans will be prepared by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation as a resolution authority based on the recovery plans and other data provided by the SIFIs. The writer will explain the key features of the proposed regislation and challenges in implementing RRP in Korea. Another main feature of FSB’s recommendation to be discussed is the Bail-in tool. There are still concerns about disadvantages against the Bail-in in Korea. However, the writer is still in favor of introducing a bail-in as a resolution tool in the long term perspective because it can mitigate the TBTF problem and bail-out issue.

국제 기준의 채권자손실분담제도의 한국 내 입법 방안: 베일인 대상 채권의 구체화 및 법적 타당성을 중심으로

고영미 ( Youngmi Ko ) 한국금융학회 2017 금융연구 Vol.31 No.1

효과적인 정리 체계는 `정해진 순서에 따라 주주 및 무담보 채권자들이 손실을 흡수`하도록 하고, `위험의 전이가 최소 수준에 그치도록 관리`하며, `공적자금의 지출을 억제하는 방식`으로 설계되어야 한다. 특히, 베일인 규정에 기초하여 상각 또는 주식으로의 전환 조치를 실행하는 경우, 정리체계 내에서 채권자평등의 원칙, 법적 우선순위, 해당 채권의 순위 등 일반 도산법상의 원칙이 존중되어야 한다. 베일인(bail-in)의 법체계는 특히 `예금에 대한 취급`, `파생상품에 대한 취급`, `담보채권에 대한 취급` 등에 관한 내용을 반드시 포함하여야 한다. 또한, 정리 수단의 효율을 높이고 손실흡수로부터의 회피를 방지하기 위해서 베일인 대상 채권이 넓게 설정될 필요가 있으나, 베일인 적격성과 범위를 정하는 기준은 명확하고 엄밀하게 규정되어야 한다. 기본적으로는 베일인 대상 채권에 포함되는 채권이라도 신용시장의 적절한 기능 보장, 금융 안정성의 유지, 그리고, 영업의 지속성 등을 위하여 꼭 필요한 경우 베일인의 적용을 면할 수 있다. 또한, 짧은 만기의 채권들 중 회사가 회생 불능 상태에 근접할수록 변동성이 매우 커지는 채권들은 베일인 조치의 대상에서 제외되어야 한다. 다른 단기 채권들은 베일인 대상에 포함될 수 있으나, 채권의 우선순위에 따라 장기 채권들이 이들 보다 먼저 손실을 흡수하게 된다. 본 논문은 채권자손실분담제도로서의 정리절차 내 베일인(Bail-in within Resolution, 이하 “베일인”)의 한국 내 도입과 관련한 법적 문제점들을 분석하고 그러한 문제점들을 해소하기 위한 방안을 수립하기 위한 목적으로 작성되었다. 특히 베일인 적용, 적용의 면제 또는 차등적 적용의 대상이 되는 채권들을 법률상 구체적으로 규정하기 위한 법적 기준과 구체적 타당성을 제시한다. 예금기관에 대한 베일인 실행은 헌법에 합치하고 동시에 금융안정 및 예금자 보호에 충실한 방식으로 이루어져야 한다. 따라서 논문은 예금자우선보호제도가 도입되지 않은 현행 법체계 내에서 베일인에 대한 법적 근거를 마련함과 동시에 예금자도 적절히 보호할 수 있는 방안을 제시할 것이다. 국제적 합의의 준수를 위하여 금융위원회와 금융감독원이 2017년 말까지 베일인을 포함한 국제기준 금융회사 회생·정리제도를 도입하기로 확정한 상황에서, 예금자 우선보호제도의 도입을 전제로 베일인 도입을 논의한다면, 베일인의 도입이 지체될 수 있고, 또한, 제도에 대한 성숙된 논의가 충분히 전개되기도 전에 예금자우선보호제도의 도입이 좌절될 우려가 있기 때문이다. Since 2007~2009 global financial crisis, Basel Committee has concentrated on the elements and legal framework requirements that jurisdictions need to muster with their resolution regime for bail-in within resolution to be effective. The FSB has consulted on how to apply bail-in as a resolution tool in detail. FSB introduced statutory bail-in powers as a resolution tool in its recommendations on legal framework for bank resolution, the “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes.” Bail-in within resolution is an additional resolution tool that could be applied in combination with other resolution tools, satisfying the KAs for a robust resolution regime. In the context of loss absorbing tools within resolution process, there were two noted approaches proposed: First, the proposal of the “Non- Viability Contingent Capital (NVCC)” is to require all non-common equity Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruments issued by banks to include a clause of mandatory written-off or conversion into common equity on the point of trigger events; Second proposal is the statutory `bail-in` to provide `strong arm` powers to supervisory/regulatory authorities for banks to write down or convert into equity or debt instruments under certain conditions. Above two systems are paid attentions for the resolution plans that can replace the public fund injection since global financial crisis. However, related to these systems, there are problems such as the range of responsibility for the insolvency, and the conflicts with the domestic laws including consitutional law. In order to mitigate tough legal challenges and strong political opposition it may face, a clear and convincing legal procedure of “bail-in” is critical to its effectiveness. Non-viability address in the document, “Minimum requirements to ensure loss absorbency at the point of non-viability” could be considered triggering event although the meaning of “non-viable” is not clearly defined and left to each national authority to determine. The non-viability in this context is different from the non-viability of a “gone” or “gone concern” which is relevant to insolvency or liquidation. Many support in principle that bank`s regulatory capital should absorb losses, but loss aborting capital structure has to be designed with deep consideration of significant risks in the context of bank capital structure. Regulators have to keep in mind the principles such as respect for the sanctity of existing contracts, maintaining the hierarchy of the capital structure, and ensuring that future bank debt is adequate for the investor base. The minimum discretion is allowed to regulators in triggering a bail-in. It should be applied only at the moment of non-viability, accompanied by transparent triggering and consequences. Insolvency or restructuring of financial institutions requires more strict procedure in its resolution than other corporations. Related to the problematic situation of the financial institutions, because the identifying illiquidity from insolvency of them is generally difficult and the interest parties such as debtors and creditors are many, and the situations are complexes, highly professional skills are required to resolve the problems. The legal and operational issues have been examined by the FSB in the context of both contractual bail-in instruments and on statutory bail-in mechanisms. Basel Committee concentrates on the elements and legal framework requirements that jurisdictions need to muster with their resolution regime for bail-in within resolution to be effective. In this article, the primary scope of my research is limited to the constitutional law of Korea in order to review relevant conflicting issues when the bail-in proposals are implemented into Korea. Last but not least, I will study how depositor preference regime would impact on the priority ranking of claims and priority ranking of loss absorbency vise versa, suggesting the potential feature of bail-in regime with proper consideration for the deposit taking institutions of Korea.