미등록 투자일임업 영업행위의 효력과 성과보수에 관한 연구―대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2018다258562 판결을 중심으로― = A Study on Validity of Unregistered Discretionary Investment and Contingency Remuneration Contract – Focusing on the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da258562 Decided June 13, 2019 –

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Supreme Court Decision 2018Da258562 Dated June 13, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”) is the first case to deal with the validity of a discretionary contract and contingency remuneration agreement entered into with an unregistered discretionary investment business under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “Capital Markets Act”). The Decision found that the validity of the discretionary contract entered into with an unregistered discretionary business, and the agreements on contingency remuneration and loss compensation entered into therewith, are valid regardless of the criminal punishment and stipulated that the protective measures for investors under the Capital Markets Act are not applicable to unregistered discretionary investment businesses that are not subject to the regulation of the same Act.
Considering that the prohibition on the business activity of unregistered discretionary investment businesses ultimately stems from the goal of the Capital Markets Act in pursuit of investor protection, even if the contract valid, it is reasonable to find ways to regulate the legal relationship that is created accordingly in line with the purpose of the Capital Markets Act. This is so because, as long as the validity of the discretionary investment contract entered into by an unregistered discretionary investment business is affirmed, the unregistered discretionary investment business is allowed to obtain contingency remuneration arising therefrom, there is an ample risk of providing an incentive to promote unregistered discretionary investment business activities if the economic benefit of such contingency remuneration exceeds the criminal punishment. Accordingly, there is a practical benefit to preventing illegal activities by defining legal relationships concerning unregistered discretionary investment business activities and establishing interpretive theories from the perspective of investor protection.
Crimes related to investment advisory businesses and discretionary investment businesses are economic crimes. Hence, the most effective means to prevent such crimes is imposing economic disadvantages. The most specific and explicit solution would be legislative solutions of increasing the upper cap of penalty surcharges imposed on unregistered business activities, applying investor protection provisions applicable to registered financial investment business operators to unregistered business operators, or adopting a punitive damages system; specific legislation, however, may rather be far from a substantive solution and may offer offenders room to circumvent regulation. Considering the above, in possible cases, it would be a more plausible direction to reasonably apply the law in line with the specific situation by determining how the legal principles are applied based on interpretive theories.
Allowing investors to claim compensation based on tort against unregistered discretionary investment businesses is likely to be the most effective method of interpretation at present. As grounds for the damages claims, if a violation of a mutually agreed-upon duty of explanation and duty of care under the principle of good faith under the Capital Markets Act beyond the negligence of registration obligation under the same Act are acknowledged as the grounds, it will facilitate investors’ damages claims. It is desirable to aim for the result where unregistered discretionary investment businesses would not choose illegality with economic incentives by lowering the expected profits for the illegal activities-being unregistered-of unregistered discretionary investment businesses.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김수정, "효력규정과 단속규정의 구별기준에 관한 체계화 모색" 한국민사법학회 85 : 3-38, 2018

2 금융감독원 금융상품분석실, "주식시장 변동성 확대에 따른 개인투자자 유의사항"

3 금융투자협회 종합통계포털, "주식거래활동계좌수"

4 편집대표 정동윤, "주석 상법" 한국사법행정학회 2021

5 편집대표 김용덕, "주석 민법" 한국사법행정학회 2019

6 편집대표 정찬형, "주석 금융법 III(자본시장법 I)" 한국사법행정학회 2013

7 한국증권법학회, "자본시장법 주석서 I" 박영사 2015

8 임재연, "자본시장법" 박영사 2021

9 김유성, "자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제17조를 위반하여 관계당국에 투 자일임업을 등록하지 않은 자와 사이에 체결된 투자일임계약이 사법상 무효인지 여부" 법원도서관 (119) : 2019

10 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2020

11 이경미, "상위 0.1% 트레이더 주식매매와 똑같이 … 미등록 투자일임 극성"

12 장병주, "법률행위 목적의 적법성 - 단속규정의 사법상 의미를 중심으로" 법학연구원 (34) : 361-388, 2010

13 김재형, "법률에 위반한 법률행위 – 이른바 강행규정의 판단기준을 중심으로 –" 민사판례연구회 26 : 2004

14 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2020

15 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2020

16 박준, "금융투자상품에 관한 손실보전약정과 강행법규･사회질서 위반" 한국상사판례학회 32 (32): 3-52, 2019

17 백지현, "금감원, 불법 리딩방 108개 적발 … 미등록 투자일임 사례 600% 폭증"

18 김태관, "국가계약법상 물가변동에 따른 계약금액 조정규정의 법적 성질-대법원 2017. 12. 21. 선고 2012다74076 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-" 법학연구소 (17) : 3-48, 2018

19 김연미, "2019년도 자본시장법 주요 판례의 검토" 한국금융법학회 17 (17): 35-66, 2020

20 장근영, "2019년 자본시장법 판례회고" 한국상사판례학회 33 (33): 133-188, 2020