보험사업에 대한 보험업법 및 공정거래법의 규제와 법적 쟁점

맹수석 ( Soo Seok Maeng ) 한국보험학회 2009 保險學會誌 Vol.82 No.-

電子船荷證券의 法的 問題

孟守錫(Soo-Seok Maeng) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2003 法學硏究 Vol.14 No.1

A B/L(bill of lading) is a carriers receipt acknowledging the shipment of a consignors goods for carriage by sea. It summarizes the terms of the contract of carriage and is also a sheet of securities that acts as a document of title for the goods at the destination. A carrier must issue a B/L containing given information upon the request from a charterer of a relevant vessel or a consignor. Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the use of electronic B/Ls in international trade. An electronic B/L contains the information usually contained in its documentary counterpart including the proper number and the individual certification code. The use of electronic B/Ls has many legal problems in Korea, as the Commercial Law of the nation does not yet contain any stipulations concerning them. In such a regard, this paper attempts to shed light on several legal problems concerning electronic B/Ls: First, matters concerning the current international trend for dependence on electronic B/Ls and legal controversies about them; Second, matters concerning the legal characteristics of electronic B/Ls (i.e. whether their legal characteristics can be recognized similar to their documentary counterparts under the current Commercial Law); Third, matters concerning the relation between electronic B/Ls and the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading. One important thing is that most legal characteristics of B/Ls recognized under the Commercial Law can also be applied to their electronic counterparts with certain conditions attached. Granted, the Commercial Law needs to be supplemented in a way to accommodate the use of electronic B/Ls, including a mitigation of requirements concerning signatures. Efforts should also be made to enhance legal stability concerning electronic B/Ls and more clearly define the legal responsibilities of the parties concerned.

전자어음과 보증보험

맹수석(Soo Seok Maeng),이호행(Ho Haeng Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2018 비교사법 Vol.25 No.3

전자어음의 활성화는 전자어음의 발행의무화를 통해 충분히 달성되고 있지만, 그것이 전자어음의 유통성 확보로 직결되지는 않는다. 전자어음의 유통성 확보는 기존 제도권금융을 통해서 이루어지는 것이 바람직하지만, 실제 현실은 그 이용률이 무척이나 낮다. 그래서 전자어음의 거래시장을 새로이 형성하는 방안을 모색해야 하며, 그 거래시장은 P2P 대출 시장이라고 판단된다. 현재 P2P 대출시장이 활성화되고 성장할 수 있느냐 하는 문제는, 궁극적으로 차입자의 상환능력이 담보되느냐에 의존하는데, 여기에 전자어음이 담보로 제공된다면 발행인의 상환능력도 추가되기 때문에 대출채권의 상환가능성이 증가되고 이로 인해 투자자의 투자금 회수도용이해질 것으로 보인다. 나아가 차입자의 채무불이행에 대비한 보증보험상품까지 제공된다면, 전자어음 거래시장의 확대와 P2P 대출시장의 확대라는 두 가지 정책목표가 동시에 실현될 수 있다고 판단된다. 이 경우 전자어음을 담보로 한 P2P 대출에 보증보험이 추가된다면, 전자어음 자체에 대한 보증의 방법보다는 차입인의 P2P 대출에 대한 보증이 보다 현실적이고 유효한 방법이라고 판단된다. The activation of the electronic bills has been sufficiently achieved through the mandatory issuance of electronic bills, but it is not directly linked to securing the negotiability of the electronic bills. It is desirable that securing the negotiability of electronic bills is done through existing system financing, but the reality is that the utilization rate is very low. Therefore, it is necessary to find a way to create a new market for the electronic bills, and it is considered that the market of P2P loan market. The question of whether the P2P loan market can be activated and grown now depends on whether the borrower"s ability to repay is ultimately guaranteed. If the electronic bills is provided as collateral, the repayment ability of the issuer will be added, which will increase the repayment possibility of the loan receivable, which will facilitate the recovery of the investor"s investment. In addition, if the warranty insurance products for borrowers" defaults are provided, it can be concluded that the two policy objectives of expanding the electronic bill market and expanding the P2P loan market can be achieved at the same time. In this case, if the warranty insurance is added to a P2P loan with an electronic note as collateral, it is more real and effective to guarantee borrower"s P2P loan rather than guarantee of electronic bill itself.

기술지주회사의 법적 쟁점에 관한 연구

맹수석(Soo-Seok Maeng) 한국기업법학회 2014 企業法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

정부는 지식재산의 경제적 가치창출을 위해 산학연협력에 역점을 두고 대학 등 연구기관에 막대한 예산을 투입하여 연구개발과 사업화를 추진해 왔다. 그리고 이를 제도적으로 뒷받침하기 위해 2007년과 2010년 산학연협력 관련 법률을 개정하여 기술지주회사제도를 도입·시행하였다. 그런데 대학 등의 R&D 예산은 지속적으로 증가하고 있지만, 연구기관의 연구결과물의 완성도가 떨어지는 등의 이유로 사업화를 통한 경제적 가치창출실적이 매우 저조한 상태이다. 나아가 지식기술의 연구성과가 사업화되는 과정에 있어서, 산학연협력 관련 법률에 많은 법적 문제가 내포되어 있다. 이 연구에서는 기술지주회사 관련 법률인 ‘산촉법’ 및 ‘기촉법’의 주요 내용을 살펴보고, 대학 등의 연구기관에서 보유하고 있는 지식기술의 연구성과를 사업화하는 과정에서 나타나는 법적 문제를 검토한 후, 입법적인 개선방안을 제시해보았다. 이 연구에서 다룬 주요 법적 쟁점은 기술지주회사의 설립시 회사형태의 제한 및 인가주의를 취함에 따른 문제, 기술지주회사의 설립시 엄격한 현물출자 규정의 문제, 주식회사이면서 중소기업인 기술지주회사에 대한 상법 및 공정거래법의 적용 문제, 기술지주회사에 대한 정부기관의 중복관리·규제 문제, 기술지주회사에 대한 세제상의 문제 등이다. The government has promoted a continuous R&D and business by making an enormous investment in the academic and industrial cooperation program of universities with an emphasis on the academic and industrial cooperation so as to create economic values of intangible knowledge properties according to the knowledge-based economy system. To that end, the government revised the laws concerning the academy and industry cooperation in 2007 and 2010 and adopted and implemented the system of technology holding company thereunder. However, the R&D budgets of universities are increasing continually, but economic values have rarely been created by turning the results of such R&D"s into business such as patents. The reason of the rare industrial utilization of such R&D achievements is the technical gap between the R&D achievement and the demand of the industry. More than that, it is difficult to utilize such R&D achievements in the industry because such R&D achievements are not sufficient to use in the industry. Also, in the course of utilizing such R&D achievements of knowledge and technology, there are lots of legal problems in the related laws for the academic and industrial cooperation. Therefore, this study looked into legal issues such as the issue of the transfer of the knowledge and technologies owned by universities, the limitation that the technology holding company which is a corporation under the commercial law and also a small and medium-sized company, the problems with the legal approval of the establishment of a technology holding company, the problem of limiting the legal form of a technology holding company to a corporation or limited company, the problem of excessive capital in-kind investments required for the establishment of a technology holding company, the multiple regulation on a technology holding company, the multiple control of the government agencies on a technology holding company, and the tax benefits for a technology holding company and presented legislative and policy improvements thereby.

증권회사의 파산과 위험부담에 관한 법적 연구

맹수석(Soo-Seok Maeng) 한국기업법학회 2017 企業法硏究 Vol.31 No.1

최근 대규모 거래착오 사태와 그룹기업의 부실 등으로 증권회사의 파산이 금융시장의 불안을 고조시키고 있는데, 증권회사가 파산하는 경우 투자자보호 내지는 위험부담을 어떻게 할 것인가에 대한 법적 연구의 필요성이 부각되고 있다. 증권회사 파산시 현행 예금자보호법이나 자본시장법의 규정만으로는 투자자보호에 한계가 있다. 향후 증권회사의 파산이 예상되는 상황에서 투자자의 손실을 최소화하기 위해서는 사전적 보호제도 못지않게 사후적 투자자보호장치의 마련도 매우 중요하다. 이 연구에서는 각국의 증권회사 파산에 대한 비교법적인 연구를 통하여 향후 증권회사가 파산할 때 투자자보호 등을 효율적으로 도모할 수 있는 구체적인 방안을 모색해 보았다. 투자자를 충실히 보호하여 금융시장의 안정성을 도모하기 위해서는 자본시장법에 다각적인 투자자 피해구제장치가 강구되어야 한다. 먼저 증권회사 파산시 투자자보호대상을 확대할 필요가 있다. 현재 투자자 예탁금만 보호대상으로 하고 있는데, 주식이나 채권 등의 유가증권은 물론 선물이나 옵션 등도 보호대상에 포함시키는 방안을 고려할 필요가 있다. 아울러 금융투자업자의 부실한 투자조언 등에 의한 손해도 보호범위에 포함시키고, 투자자피해구제기금제도의 도입도 검토할 필요가 있다. 그러나 이 제도는 투자자의 감시를 통한 시장규율의 저해 등 도덕적 위험이라는 역기능도 있다. 따라서 투자자에 대해 손실금액의 일정 비율만 보호하는 공동보험제도를 도입하여야 할 것이다. 이와 함께 증권회사의 위험에 비례하여 구제기금을 부담시킬 필요도 있다고 본다. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, so-called financial advanced countries such as the US have been making multi-faceted measures to protect financial investors. In particular, there are many discussions being held on bearing risks in the event that a securities company goes bankrupt. Recently, there have been increased anxieties in the finance market due to bankruptcies of securities companies such as large-scale transaction mistakes and defaults of corporate groups. Therefore, legal studies on how to protect investors or bear risks when a securities company goes bankrupt are necessary. This study examined detailed restriction plans that can efficiently regulate investor protection, etc. in the event that a securities company goes bankrupt in the future through comparative legal research. There are limitations in providing sufficient protection for investors in the event that a securities company goes bankrupt with the current Depositor Protection Act. Therefore, in addition to regulations on sales behavior on financial investors in the Capital Market Act to provide proper protection to investors, it is necessary to apply strict regulations on financial products with concerns of loss of principal such as options. In particular, providing post-investment protection devices that protect against the loss for investors to minimize investor losses where bankruptcy of securities companies can be expected is essential. For this, an investor loss relief fund system should be implemented. Plans that prepare for the bankruptcy of financial investment businesses must be made to provide sufficient protection to investors in the securities market. This system, however, also has side effects such as increase of fund operation costs and moral hazards. Therefore, a co-insurance program that protects only a certain part of losses for investors like that of the EU should be introduced. In addition, the risks of securities companies should be accurately and objectively measured and they should be liable for payment to the fund accordingly, while coming up with plans to overcome information asymmetry so that securities companies make payments proportional to their level of risk to the fund.

변액보험 관련 판례와 소비자보호의 법리

맹수석 ( Soo Seok Maeng ) 한국금융소비자학회 2013 금융소비자연구 Vol.3 No.1

변액보험이란 보험금이 자산운용의 성과에 따라 변동하는 보험을 말한다. 즉 납입된 보험료의 전부 또는 일부를 별도의 특별계정에 산입하여, 특별계정의 운용성과를 사망보험금이나 만기보험금(또는 해약환급금)의 액수에 반영시킴으로써, 보험금액이 보험기간 중 변동되는 방식의 보험을 말한다. 이에 따라 보험회사의 특별계정에 대한 운용성과가 나쁘게 되면 그만큼 보험금도 줄어들게 되는데, 변액보험의 이러한 금융투자상품적 특성으로 인해 전통적인 보험과는 다른 구조의 법적 분쟁이 생기게 된다. 변액보험을 판매하는 보험자가 변액보험의 원본손실 위험에 대한 설명의무의 불이행 내지는 적합성 원칙의 위반을 이유로 하는 민원이 많이 제기되고 있는 것에서 알 수 있듯이, 변액보험을 구입한 소비자보호 문제가 사회적 이슈로 대두되고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 최근 변액보험에 대한 판결이 점증하고 있다. 이 연구에서 검토한 대상판결은 변액보험을 보험으로의 성질과 금융투자상품으로서의 성질을 동시에 가지고 있는 것으로 파악하고 있는 점, 보험계약의 권유단계에서 인정되는 적합성원칙을 적용하면서 이를 위반한 경우 불법행위로 파악하고 있는 점, 보험계약 체결단계에서 보험모집인의 충분한 정보의 제공 등 실질적 의미의 설명의무를 지우고 있는 점 등은 타당한 판단이라고 본다. 다만 손해배상액의 산정에 있어서 과실상계에 대한 합리적 기준의 제시가 이루어 지도록 하여야 할 것이다. 향후 변액보험계약자의 불측의 손해를 방지하기 위해서는 적합성원칙의 엄격한 적용, 정확한 정보제공 및 설명의무의 실질적이고 충분한 이행, 금융감독당국의 적정한 감독, 보험사업자의 자주적인 노력 등이 함께 이루어져야 할 것이다. Variable insurance stands for an insurance in which the insurance premium varies depending on the performance of asset management. In other words, it stands for an insurance of the method where the insurance premium fluctuates during the insurance period by reflecting the manageability of special account on the amount of death benefit or expiration benefit(or surrender value). Accordingly, while the insurance premium gets reduced by as much if the management performance on the special account of insurance company is unsatisfactory, legal dispute of different structure from the traditional insurance gets created due to such financial investment product related characteristics of variable insurance. As it can be seen from the fact that many complaints for the reason of nonperformance of duty to explain on the risk of original capital loss of variable insurance or the violation on the suitability rules, the problem of protecting the consumers who have purchased variable insurance is rising as social issue. Under these circumstances, the judgments on variable insurance is gradually increasing recently. The fact that the judgment which is the subject of examination in this study is identified as having nature of insurance and nature of financial investment product on the variable insurance, the fact of applying the suitability rule acknowledged in the recommendation stage of insurance contract and identifying as illegal activity in case of violating this or the fact of bearing the explanation obligation of actual sense such as providing adequate information of insurance recruiter at the conclusion stage of insurance contract, etc are determined as reasonable judgments. However, the presentation of reasonable standard on the setoff of blunder would have to be accomplished in terms of calculating the loss compensation amount. In the future, the strict application of suitability rule, substantial and sufficient performance of providing accurate information and obligation of explanation, proper supervision of financial supervisory authorities or independent effort of insurance businesses, etc would have to take place at the same time.

심사논문 : 핀테크산업에 있어서 금융소비자보호의 법적 과제

맹수석 ( Soo Seok Maeng ) 한국금융소비자학회 2015 금융소비자연구 Vol.5 No.1

최근 각광을 받고 있는 핀테크산업은 금융과 정보통신기술(IT)이 융합되어 양자의 특성을 공유하고 있는 금융산업분야이다. 금융산업은 전통적으로 정부가 엄격하게 관리하는 규제산업인데 반해, IT산업은 규제보다는 창의성을 기초로 하는 특징을 갖고 있다. 그런데 금융과 IT가융합된 핀테크산업을 기존 금융산업의 하나로 인식하고 종래와 같이 동일선상에서 규율하는 것에는 한계가 있을 수 밖에 없다. 핀테크는 기존의 금융회사와 비금융회사간의 경계를 허물게되고, 금융소비자의 편익 증대는 물론 첨단금융기법의 활용으로 우리나라 금융회사의 국제경쟁력을 강화시켜 줄 수 있다. 그러나 핀테크는 순기능만큼 역기능도 존재한다. 즉, 비대면거래의 특성상 종래 전자상거래에서 나타날 수 있는 금융소비자의 피해가 광범해질 수 있고, 지급결제기능 등을 하고 있기 때문에 핀테크 영위회사의 부실은 시스템리스크로 전이될 수 있는 등의 문제가 있다. 이러한 측면에서 핀테크산업에 대한 금융감독기관의 적정한 감독기능이 확립되어야 할 것이고, 핀테크거래에서 생기는 분쟁에 대한 역할분담과 책임소재에 대한 기준 등이 관련 법령에 포함되어야 한다. 결국 핀테크산업의 활성화를 위한 규제완화도 필요하겠지만, 그에 앞서 금융소비자보호를위한 적정한 규제 방안이 전자금융거래법 등에 규정되어야 할 것이다. The term FinTech is a contraction of the words financial and technology. FinTech is shorthand for innovation in financial services, whether that means new products from new startups. The remedy we have found is FinTech, with everything from cryptocurrencies, to transaction ledgers, to peer-to-peer financing payments & infrastructure operations & risk management data security & monetisation customer interface and much more. The shock experienced by the financial sector is being leveraged by new FinTech start-ups that benefited from a set of factors. The innovations emerging from the FinTech sector carry enormous transformative power for the financial sector. It’s extremely important that this development is allowed to continue, we are far fro m where most of the solutions get traction by the customers. In the last few years we have seen mobile banking gain significant traction. FinTech and big data ‘revolutions’ thus far have had minimal impact on regulation, risk and compliance. Due to the bre adth of the FinTech sector, it is hard to talk about “FinTech Regulation” per-se. Ther e is an emergence of new players alongside the existing large companies that were alre ady in the space. A problem with new emerging FinTech companies is that they have limited track records regarding their business and a difficult time to identify what are their obligations.

국제무역금융의 전자화 현황과 법적 과제 -전자신용장을 중심으로-

맹수석 ( Soo Seok Maeng ) 한국해법학회 2002 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.24 No.2

Today`s information and telecommunication technology advancement allowed e-commerce to grow as one of major trade channels in the international market. That means electronic creditsare gradually replacing L/C-based payment methods. ICC initiated the current trend towardselectronic credits by releasing UCP 500(Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits) in 1993. Eventually the ICC Banking Commission provided rulesin the name of eUCP(UCP Supplement for Electronic Presentation) to regulate electronic trade, which went into an effect April 1, 2002. This newly introduced guideline marked the transition from documentary letters of credit to electronic credits. Despite growing number of electronic trades in the international market, government`s response to this change does not seem sufficient in terms of legal issues and research efforts. Therefore, this study focused on two issues to adopt electronic trades successfully. First, this study identifies different settlement methods for international trade transactions, specifiedin UCP 500 and eUCP(or Electronic Presentation), to suggest legal revisions that would clear some most crucial legal problems. This study also reviews whether the TradeCard System, which was introduced to overcome limitations involving paper letters of credit, and paperless bill of lading issued by the Bolero System can be used in compliance with eUCP rules. to that end, this study is intended to improve understanding of systematic changes arising from the evolution from paper to electronic credits and to contribute in preventing legal disputes in electronic settlement of payments for international trade.

금융투자상품 판매시 금융기관의 설명의무

맹수석(Maeng, Soo Seok) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2013 法學硏究 Vol.24 No.1

최근 금융공학의 발달로 매우 복잡한 구조의 금융투자상품이 출시되고 있다. 이러한 현상은 일반투자자들로 하여금 상품의 구조와 특성을 이해하기 어렵게 하여 불측의 손해를 입게 한다. 전문투자가에 비하여 일반투자자의 경우 투자 여부에 대한 판단에 있어서 금융전문가에 대한 의존도가 더 높아지게 되므로, 금융투자업자의 주의의무도 강화될 수밖에 없다. 결국 복잡다기한 금융투자상품의 출현 등 투자환경이 급변하고 있는 상황에서는 금융투자상품의 판매시 해당 상품에 대한 적확한 정보의 제공 등 일반투자자를 보호하기 위한 제반 원칙의 중요성이 강조되어야 할 것이다. 실무상 금융투자업자의 투자자에 대한 보호 원칙, 특히 설명의무와 관련한 판례가 자주 나오고 있다. 최근에도 펀드투자자가 첫 번째 계약을 맺으면서 은행 측으로부터 투자 위험성에 대해 설명을 들었다면 계약을 갱신할 때 또 다시 설명을 듣지 못했어도 은행에 손해배상책임을 묻기 어렵다는 대법원 판결이 나왔다. 이 연구에서는 금융투자상품의 판매시 금융투자업자가 부담하는 설명의무 등 일반투자자 보호에 관한 원칙을 검토한 후, 대법원의 대상 판결에 대한 평석을 하였다. Financial investment products with very complicated structures have been launched into the market due to the development of financial engineering. This phenomenon makes it difficult for ordinary investors to understand the structure and characteristics of the financial products so that they suffer a loss unexpectedly. Thus, in comparison with professional investors, more and more ordinary investors rely on financial experts when they make a decision about an investment. Hence, it is necessary that the duty of financial investors for caution should be enhanced. Eventually, in the situation where the environment of investment is changing rapidly due to the appearance of complicated financial investment products, the importance of general principles to protect ordinary investors should be emphasized, for instance, by providing accurate information about the financial investment products when offering for sales. Judicial decisions regarding the principle of protecting investors in financial investments, especially, the duty for explanation, are frequently published. There has been published a decision of the supreme court that it is difficult for an fund investor to request the bank to compensate for a loss even if an explanation is not given again when renewing a contract in the case that an explanation about the risks of investment was given by the bank when concluding the initial contract. This study considered the principles for protecting ordinary investors, for example, the duty of a financial investor for explanation when selling financial investment products, and then made critical notes about the related decisions of the supreme court.

전자채권의 법적 쟁점

맹수석(Soo-Seok Maeng) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2009 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.1

Electronic receivable seems to be promoted in its distribution by high legal certainty by electronic registration system, readability (visibility) of contents of rights and convenience in assignment procedure, etc. Particularly, small and medium-sized enterprises with credit sales credit by electronic receivable system is expected to procure funds more easily. However, the present Electronic Finance Transaction Law provides only for definition provisions of electronic receivable and counteraction factor provisions regarding assignment of electronic receivable but has problems of impeding legal certainty by deficient provisions of registration requirement. Therefore to secure liquidity of electronic receivable by complementing such deficiency hereafter, writer thinks that legal improvement regarding electronic receivable system is urgently needed. As such is the legal complement, terms need to be improved first. Since electronic receivable takes effect by its registration, the term ‘registered electronic receivable’ is deemed more appropriate than the term ‘electronic receivable.’ Second, it is necessary to have specific provision regarding what the contents of such credit are at the time of registration of electronic receivable. Particularly, required record matters such as the gist of payment by obligor of a certain amount, payment time, name and address of creditor and obligor, etc. at the time of registration shall have to be stipulated. Third, cutoff provision for acquisition in good faith and personal defense in assignment of electronic receivable shall have to be stipulated. Fourth, regarding electronic receivable also, provision recognizing guarantee by note and system of right of pledge shall have to be stipulated. Fifth, user shall have to be heartily protected by reinforcing regulation of electronic receivable managers.