RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
          펼치기
        • 등재정보
          펼치기
        • 학술지명
          펼치기
        • 주제분류
          펼치기
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • 전자결제시스템으로서의 CHIPS와 Fedwire에 관한 비교 연구

        이병렬,김종칠 신라대학교 경제경영연구소 2007 경제경영연구 Vol.8 No.-

        This article is to discuss on comparative research between CHIPS and Fedwire as the cross-border payment systems which America have used at present. The CHIPS is a New York-based automated private-sector clearing facility for large-dollar transfers. It is a central switch communication and settlement system whose 53 participating banks exchange same-day payment messages over dedicated communication lines linking each one to the CHIPS central computer. On January 22, 2001, the CHIPS introduced immediate finality for payment released from the CHIPS queue. Unlike the Fedwire system, the CHIPS system is not a real-time gross settlement system. The CHIPS is hybrid system that uses a computer program to select payment order in a queue for release to the receiving bank. The CHIPS are governed by CHIPS Rules and Administrative Procedures. The Fedwire system is a nationwide electronic fund-transfer system facilitating same-day transfers throughout the United States. It is a gross settlement system providing immediate credit to the receiving bank's master account. Communicating between a Federal Reserve Bank and Fedwire users can be either on-line or off-line. The Fedwire transfers are governed by Subpart B of Regulation J, issued by the Federal Reserve Board, which incorporates U.C.C. Article 4A but preempts or supersedes any of its inconsistent provisions.

      • SCOPUSKCI등재

        TCD를 이용한 말초성(末梢性) 구안괘사환자에 대(對)한 임상적(臨床的) 고찰(考察)

        이병렬,안택원,이현,Lee, Byung-Ryul,Ann, Taek-Won,Lee, Hyun 대한약침학회 2003 Journal of pharmacopuncture Vol.6 No.2

        Objective : This study was carried to make out the connection between cerebral artery blood flow velocity and ischemic theory that presumed the cause of Bell's palsy. Method : We measured cerebral artery blood flow velocity each external carotid artery, internal carotid artery, common carotid artery, siphon, superficial temporal artery by TCD to 20 patients who diagnosed as facial nerve palsy from march 2001 to July 2001 and all objectives devided two groups as palsy side. A group is right side facial nerve palsy and B group is left facial nerve palsy. Results : 1. There is no effective change of blood flow in external carotid artery either A, B group. 2. There is no effective change of blood flow in internal carotid artery either A, B group. 3. There is no effective change of blood flow in common carotid artery either A, B group. 4. There is no effective change of blood flow in siphon artery either A, B group. 5. There is no effective change of blood flow in superficial temporal artery either A, B group.

      • KCI등재

        EU의 전자결제시스템에 대한 비교연구 : 타젯과 세파를 중심으로

        이병렬 한국국제상학회 2013 國際商學 Vol.28 No.1

        This paper discusses on Wholesale Electronic Payment System in EU. Especially I analysis TARGET compare with SEPA to advance a research effects. Because Target is usually used to settle wholesale funds while SEPA mainly adapt a small, consumer to consumer payment. Target is established in 1999 but transferred to TARGET2 in 2007 as Trans-european Automated Real-time Gross Settlement Express Transfer System. SEPA is operated in 2010 as Single Euro Payment Area. I used Guideline of the ECB on a TARGET2 and Payment Services Directive as a analysis tools. I also adapted MOU on an Intra-ESCB Dispute Settlement Procedure and SEPA Credit Transfer Scheme Rulebook, SEPA Direct Debit Scheme Rulebook to rule concerned parties. This article is going to display as fellows; First of all, I presented establishment background and legal stabilities of electronic payment system in EU. Second, I analyze in distinguish marks of payment system and mechanism both system including participation methods in payment system Third, I focus on operation policy and the allocation of risk of loss caused by ambiguous payment orders and technology errors of system. I also did analyze many solutions in order to manage risk occurring in course of send of payment order. For example, intraday credit, limit, liquidity reservation liquidity pooling, queue management etc. Lastly, In order to develop electronic payment system, I suggested policy proposals together with conclusion.

      • KCI등재

        결제시스템으로서 FedACH와 FedNow에 관한 비교연구

        이병렬 한국통상정보학회 2021 통상정보연구 Vol.23 No.2

        This paper did on the comparative study between FedACH and FedNow of America. The FedACH provides financial institutions with efficient, low-cost batched payment services that enable an electronic exchange of debit and credit transactions through ACH network. The suite includes a wide range of easy-to-use transaction and information services that conveniently and seamlessly integrate with all Federal Reserve Financial Services and offer a variety of access and connectivity options. For example, FedACH origination and receipt, FedACH Information File Service, FedACH Risk Management Services, FedACH SameDay service, FedPayments Reporter Service, Exception Resolution Service etc. MeanWhile, The FedNow will provide an interbank faster payment system. Interbank systems typically enable payers to pay much wider groups of payees, even those who have an account with a different financial institution. In these systems, payments are routed and settled among the various participating financial institutions through a common network. In addition, because it will clear and settle payments simultaneously, transaction by transaction, in near real time, the FedNow will be an interbank instant payments system. This study analyzes the precedent research and features in real-time payment system of between FedACH and FedNow of America. This research also examines the availability and the operational policy of the two systems. Additionally, I suggested the policy implications, with good reason, for development and contracture of real-time payment system together with conclusion in this article. 미국은 지금까지 소액자금은 차액결제방식으로, 거액자금은 총액결제방식으로 운영해 왔다. 즉, 연방준비은행은 이체금액별 결제방식을 분리하여 처리해왔다. 그러나 FedNow를 2023년에 구축함으로써 소액자금도 총액방식으로 결제함으로써 소액은 차액방식, 거액은 총액방식이라는 결제규모별 이중적 체제는 탈피하였다. 반면 미 연방준비은행이 소액자금의 차액결제방식인 FedACH뿐 아니라 총액결제방식인 FedNow까지 운영하게되어 소액결제시스템의 복수 운영체제를 달성하게 되었다. FedNow는 급변하는 지급결제시장의 요구조건을 반영하고 기존의 소액결제시스템인 FedACH의 구조적 한계를 보완하였다는 점에서 시장의 주목을 받고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 세계 지급결제시장의 변화를 주도하고 있는 미 연방준비은행의 소액결제시스템인 FedACH의 진화와 FedNow의 구축 동향과 발전, 리스크 및 유동성 관리정책 등을 중심으로 비교 분석하고자 한다. 한국도 차세대 한은 금융만을 2020년 10월부터 가동하면서 정해진 시간마다 대기 중인 모든 지급지시를 서로 차감하여 건별 총액기준으로 동시 결제방식을 선택하여 유동성을 절감하는 등 중앙은행 결제시스템의 고도화를 추진하고 있다. 이에 때맞추어 본 연구를 통하여 중앙은행의 소액자금 총액결제시스템 운영을 선도적으로 구축하고 있는 미국의 모델을 연구하여 한국에서도 중앙은행이 소액자금을 총액방식으로 실시간 최종결제할 경우 수출기업에 필요한 정책적 시사점을 제시하고자 한다.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼