부동산 크라우드펀딩 활성화를 위한 제도개선 방안 연구 = A study on improving the regulational system of crowdfunding for the real estate

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to propose ways to improve the system for the activation of real estate crowdfunding. To this end, we examined equity and lending crowdfunding related regulations, analyzed the market situation in regards to real estate crowdfunding and reviewed the effectiveness of the system and the necessity of improvement. As a result, we propose the following regulation improvements.
First, considering its characteristics of large investment amounts and low risk of insolvency, the real estate development sector needs to lower the restrictions on investment limits. Second, the reporting and disclosure obligations of crowdfunding companies should be strengthened to simultaneously enhance industry transparency and investor protection. Third, it is necessary to improve laws and regulation to allow investment in real estate business, as equity crowdfunding laws currently restrict investment in real estate business. This study is meaningful in that it proposes a direction for the continuous growth of crowdfunding in Korea and the protection of investors through the improvement and revitalization of real estate crowdfunding system.
To stimulate real estate crowdfunding, it is necessary to raise a group of investors who have a high commitment rate. In order to do so, it is necessary to secure a certain level of autonomy so that investment can be made considering the risks that are taken under their budget constraints.
In the case of loan-type crowdfunding, it started in the form of P2P loans in Korea and is growing rapidly. However, due to the fact that related industries were not legislated, the risk of investors was concerning. Therefore, the financial authorities are recommending to comply with basic regulations through implementation of 'P2P loan guidelines'. However, the analysis of Korea P2P Financial Association data shows that the growth of loan-type real estate crowdfunding (real estate PF sector) has remarkably decreased since the regulation implementation. The main reason for such decrease seems to result from the investment limit, which covers the investment amount per capita and the annual investment limit for a single company. Real estate crowdfunding is relatively expensive due to the nature of the real estate development business, so the amount of the offer is bound to increase. However, due to the restriction of the current investment limit, the biggest advantage of real estate crowdfunding can be discarded that the general investor can diversely invest in a large number of real estate with a small amount of investment. In the case of brokers (P2P companies) who are facing serious shortage of funds, real estate crowdfunding companies are faced with more unfavorable conditions, and the cost of recruiting funds has increased due to various promotions for attracting investors. This may again cause investors to make investment decisions based on factors other than project feasibility, which would mean that the regulations placed to protect the investors are ironically increasing their risk. In the current loan-type crowdfunding market, the real estate PF sector has accounted for the largest portion and has led the market growth. However, real estate crowdfunding companies face more adverse conditions than other industries due to the largest influence of investment limit regulation. If this phenomenon continues, it may have an adverse effect on the overall crowdfunding market; therefore, the deregulation of the industry as a whole must be examined.
On the other hand, the main purpose of the investment limit regulation is investor protection. Real estate crowdfunding is relatively low risk in terms of redeeming resources when compared to other crowdfunding types because real estate such as land and buildings is invested as collateral. This result can be obtained by analyzing the correlation between accumulated loan amount of real estate PF and delinquency and default rate. Therefore, there is a need to relax restrictions on investment limits based on the characteristics of the industry, such as placing an exception clause in consideration of the real estate industry’s relatively low risk of insolvency. Even the survey on the investors’ opinion shows that the current regulation level is not appropriate, as the most frequently stated intended investment amount was 10 million won per investment, which greatly exceeds the limit of the current investment limit. In addition, the recent enactment of the Enforcement Decree of the Large Business Administration Act and the supervision regulation have defined P2P companies as 'lenders related to online lending information' and are making efforts to attract P2P companies into the system by imposing obligations to register with the Financial Services Commission. However, in terms of enhancing transparency, there is a term within the P2P loan guidelines that states 'information provided by investors', but the fact that this is not compulsory, only a recommendation, is a problem.
In the case of real estate crowdfunding, it is necessary to relax the limit on investment limit only for the real estate PF sector. Considering the results of the investor survey conducted earlier, it seems reasonable to reduce the amount to 10 million won per investment. The investment limit per company should also be significantly eased or abolished so that the general investors can secure autonomy of investment. This would be the most favorable way to revive the original intention of crowdfunding.
Equity crowdfunding has been institutionalized through the amendment of the Capital Market Law, but there are legal restrictions on funding for the real estate business under the relevant laws and regulations. In case of real estate investment using equity crowdfunding, it is allowed only in real estate development business for public interest purpose. Therefore, the growth of equity real estate crowdfunding is inherently limited. As for the investment preference stage, it can be confirmed that there is a preference for the land purchase phase and the purchase/operation phase of existing buildings as well as the final phase of the building. In order to expand this market, stock-type and bond-type, and equity-type crowdfunding may be more appropriate. Currently, it is necessary to improve the system so that equity crowdfunding can invest in real estate other than for the public interest.
In addition, the investment limit regulation is stricter than for loan-type crowdfunding. Thus, as with loan-type crowdfunding, results from surveys showed that the limit is not consistent with the general investors’ preferences of crowdfunding investment. The case is still weak due to the legal limit, but the investment limit is set too low even after considering it appropriate to apply a stricter standard than the loan-type crowdfunding due to the higher risks. In terms of enhancing transparency, equity crowdfunding is required to disclose investment prospectus in accordance with related laws such as the Capital Market Law, but there are structural problems where one can avoid disclosure obligations if certain conditions are met. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to improve the system to allow the real estate business only in equity crowdfunding. It is necessary to prepare an exception clause for the real estate business and the lease business in the present law clause, in which the current equity crowdfunding is prohibited from investing in the corporation that operates the real estate business. As a result, real estate crowdfunding will contribute to the revitalization of equity crowdfunding as it has led the loan-type crowdfunding market.
Similar to the lending type, investment limit regulations need to reflect the investors’ needs and increase the investment limit to 10 million won per investment, as stated in the survey results. As there are no equity crowdfunding cases for investment purposes, there will need to be another investigation as to what the investors' needs are and reflect it upon the regulations when it becomes possible to invest in equity crowdfunding in future real estate business. The transparency enhancement part should complement the investors’ risks that are exposed due to long-term investment cuts. Therefore, unless there is a special reason in the related law, it is necessary to define the reporting period and the disclosure periodically, such as at least once every six months, without recognizing the exception clause. This will enable the crowdfunding industry to enhance transparency and protect investors at the same time.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 배경과 목적 1
• 2. 연구의 내용과 방법 4
• Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰 7
• 1. 크라우드펀딩 개요 7
• 1) 크라우드펀딩의 유형 7
• 2) 크라우드펀딩의 역할과 특징 9
• 3) 크라우드펀딩의 발전과 국내 도입 10
• 2. 크라우드펀딩 관련제도 및 시장현황 13
• 1) 크라우드펀딩 관련제도 13
• 2) 크라우드펀딩 시장현황 25
• 3. 부동산과 크라우드펀딩 34
• 1) 부동산 크라우드펀딩의 장점 34
• 2) 부동산 크라우드펀딩의 구조 35
• 3) 리츠, 펀드와의 차이점 37
• 4. 선행연구 39
• 1) 해외 선행연구 39
• 2) 국내 선행연구 40
• 3) 본 연구의 차별성 43
• Ⅲ. 부동산 크라우드펀딩 거래사례 분석 44
• 1. 분석개요 44
• 1) 분석대상 44
• 2) 분석자료 45
• 2. 투자대상 및 자금모집 46
• 1) 사업규모 및 자금조달금액 47
• 2) 투자시점 48
• 3) 투자기간 및 투자수익률 49
• 4) 자금모집횟수 및 모집기간 51
• 3. 시장참여자 FGI 53
• 1) 조사개요 54
• 2) 분석결과 55
• 3) 투자자보호 57
• 4. 소결 59
• Ⅳ. 부동산 크라우드펀딩 잠재투자자 분석 62
• 1. 분석개요 62
• 1) 분석방법 62
• 2) 분석내용 62
• 2. 투자자 특성별 투자선호 분석 64
• 1) 응답자 일반특성 64
• 2) 크라우드펀딩 인지여부 및 투자경험 66
• 3) 크라우드펀딩 선호여부 67
• 4) 크라우드펀딩의 선호이유 72
• 5) 투자시점 및 기간 75
• 6) 투자금액 및 요구수익률 79
• 3. 소결 86
• Ⅴ. 결론 89
• 1. 연구의 결과 89
• 2. 제도적 시사점 89
• 1) 투자한도 완화 89
• 2) 투자대상 확대 90
• 3) 통합포털 구축 91
• 4) 투명성 강화 및 투자자 보호 92
• 2. 연구의 한계 및 향후과제 93
• 참고문헌 95
• ABSTRACT 104

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. (www, 인크, yinc.kr),

2. 핀테크 3.0, 김종현, 한국금융연수원, 년, , 2017

3. “핀테크시대”, 고학수, 박영사, 년, , 2015

4. 「자본시장법」, 임재연, 박영사, 박영사, 년, , 2016

5. “크라우드펀딩 노하우”, 박재홍, 한국크라우드펀딩협회, 년 3월 16일, , 2017

6. 부동산 금융의 현황과 과제, 손재영, 한국개발연구원, 한국개발연구원, 년, , 2012

7. 지식재산금융과 가치평가실무, 조경선, 한국금융연수원, 한국금융연수원, 년, , 2014

8. “벤처창업과 크라우드 펀딩”, 김연미, 창조경제연구회, 년 8월, , 2012

9. “부동산펀드에 관한 법적연구”, 임춘수, 경희대 대학원, 석사학위논문, 년 8 월, , 2014

10. 부동산 투자선호요인에 관한 연구, 황종규, 이동주, 권대중, 대한부동산학회, 대한부동산학회, 년 45권, , 2017

11. “중국 P2P금융 부실화 우려 검증”, 우희성, 주혜원, 국제금융 inside, 52호, 국제 금융센터, 년 7월, , 2016

12. “P2P금융의 부동산사업 활용방안”, 최수석, (주)헬로핀테크, 부동산사업 강의자 료 년 4월 18일, , 2017

13. 4명, “부동산개발사업의 PROJECT FINANCE", 김기형, 부연사, 년, , 2010

14. “산업안전지도사-Ⅲ 기업진단 지도”, 정재수, 함기영, 도서출판 세화, 년, , 2014

15. “프로젝트 파이낸싱의 개념과 실체”, 박동규, 명경사, 년, , 2009

16. “P2P 대출중개에 관한 제도적 개선방안”, 서병호, 이순호, 한국금융연구원, 년 12월, , 2015

17. “국내 P2P 대출 규제에 대한 법률상 쟁점”, 신경희, 자본시장Weekly, 년, , 2016

18. “크라우드펀딩 제도의 도입과 발전방향”, 김영도, 예탁결제 제88호, 년, , 2014

19. “자본시장법상 집합투자규제에 관한 연구”, 정숙연, 동아대 대학원 박사학위논 문, 년 12월, , 2010

20. “크라우드펀딩의 활성화 움직임과 시사점”, 한혜영, 하나금융경영연구소, 년 제3권 35호, , 2013

21. “국내 크라우드 펀딩의 법제화에 관한 연구”, 남우석, 민대환, 한국IT마케팅학회, 년, , 2015

22. “국내 모험자본시장의 현황분석과 발전방향”, 박용린, 자본시장연구원, 자본시장연구원, 년 3월, , 2017

23. “자금조달 수단으로서 Crowdfunding에 관한 연구”, 윤민섭, 기업법연구, 년 26(2), , 2012

24. “크라우드펀딩 분야의 국내외 연구동향 분석”, 이호근, 곽현, 한국정보화진흥원, 정보화정책, 년 제21권 제4호, , 2014

25. “중국 온라인 P2P 대출중개업에 대한 규제 동향”, 최용원, 년 중국자본시 장연구, 금융투자협회, 2016년, , 2016

26. “크라우드펀딩의 부동산 산업 활용현황과 과제”, 최수석, 손재영, 건국대학교 법학연구소, 일감부동산법 학, 년 8월, , 2017

27. 「증권형 크라우드펀딩 제도의 구축방향과 과제」, 천창민, 자본시장연구원, 자본시장연구원, 년, , 2013

28. “크라우드펀딩의 제도화와 소비자보호방안 연구,”, 윤민섭, 한국소비자원, 한국소비자원, 년, , 2013

29. “크라우드펀딩(Crowdfunding)의 規制方案에 관한 硏究”, 최정환, 고려대 대학 원, 석사학위논문, 년 12월, , 2014

30. “지분투자형 크라우드펀딩의 규제체계 수립에 대한 연구”, 성희활, 한국증권법 학회, 년 8월 31일, 제14권 제2호, , 2013

31. “부동산투자회사의 상품 유형별 동시투자 결정요인 연 구”, 김상진, 권대중, 박윤태, 대한부동산학회, 사단법인 대한부동산학회, 년 제43호, , 2016

32. 크라우드 펀딩을 이용한 부동산 개발사업의 적용에 관한 소고, 서진형, 신민식, 한국집합건물법학회, 집합건물법학, 년 제19집, , 2016

33. “부동산시장에 있어서 스왑옵션의 가치와 위험성 평가에 관한 연구”, 김행조, 대한부동산학회, 대한부동산학회, 년 제43호, , 2016

34. “P2P등 특수한 유형의 온라인서비스 이용관련 소비자피해 및 개선방 안”, 한정희, 한국소비자원, 한국소비자원, 년, , 2013

35. “크라우드 펀딩 활성화에 관한 연구: 지원제도와 해외 국내 사례를 중심으로”, 김동호, 「국제경영리뷰」, 년 제18권 제2호, , 2014

36. “금융산업의 발전과 소비자보호: 지정토론문: 금융소비자 개념의 정의 에 관하여”, 민영선, 저스티스 통권 제121호, 년 10월, , 2010

37. “민간재원의 참여 확대를 위한 개발사업 크라우드펀딩 (Crowdfunding) 접근방식 검토”, 신재은, 권호, 곽재성, 국제개발협력학회, 국제개발협력연구, 년 제8권 3호, , 2016

38. “크라우드펀딩의 법적 문제와 개선방안: 증권형 대출형 크라우드펀딩을 중심으로”, 김세련, 전남대 박사학위논문, 년 2월, , 2017

39. “서민금융기관의 대출금리, 비용구조 및 수익성에 관한 연구: 해 외의 영리 마이크로파니넌스 기관을 활용한 실증분석”, 이기영, 정영석, 금융연구 제 26권 제2 호, 한국금융연구원 년, , 2012