금융투자업자의 적합성 원칙 준수의무와 민사책임 = 일본 최고재판소 2005. 7. 14. 판결(最高裁 平成17年 7月 14日)을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the decision of the Japanese Supreme Court (Saiko Saibansho) of 14 July 2005. the Court held that a breach of the suitability principle of the Securities Exchange Act of Japan (cf. Article 400) of the Financial Instrument and Exchange Act now in force) is a tortious act. In Court's views. when representatives of securities corporations have engaged in material breaches of the principle of suitability in recommending and having clients engage in securities trades. such as by the positive recommendation of trades that are clearly accompanied by excessive risk. contrary to the client's wishes and circumstances. it is appropriate to view those acts as being illegal under the law on tort law as well.
Under the Capital Market and Financial Investment Industry Act of Korea. the violation of suitability rule could constitute a tort liability. The suitability principle in Article 46 of the Act provides that no financial investment business entity shall recommend an ordinary investor to make an investment. if the investment is considered unsuitable for the investor in light of the investment purpose. status of property. experience in investment. etc. of the investor. That is. financial investment business entities must act in good faith. and may not knowingly recommend bad investments. But the issues are (1) what the suitability rule is the criteria for its definition and (2) whether a breach of the rule could be a tortious act.
This article suggests that the suitability rule of the Act must be interpreted by the narrow sense. Also. this article says that a breach of the suitability principle of the Act may be in violation of torts law. A financial investment business entity shall be liable for the damages inflicted upon ordinary investors by its violation of the suitability principle under tort law. In order to make the application of suitability principle. however. it is necessary to consider reasonable and proper standards of judgment for its illegality.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서언
• Ⅱ. 판결의 개요
• Ⅲ. 판결에 대한 검토
• Ⅳ. 우리법과의 관련성
• Ⅴ. 결어
• 參考文獻
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 양석완, "판례로 본 증권투자권유에 따른 적합성원칙" 한국기업법학회 12 : 299-330, 2003

2 윤광균, "증권회사의 고객보호의무와 손해배상책임" 한국법학원 (97) : 114-134, 2007

3 김병연, "증권투자권유규제에 대한 소고 - 자본시장통합법(안)과 관련하여 -" 한국비교사법학회 14 (14): 471-500, 2007

4 이상철, "증권매매위탁계약에 관한 몇 가지 법률적 문제점. in: 증권거래에 관한 제문제(상), 재판자료 제90집" 법원도서관 2001

5 김화진, "증권관련업무겸업과 이해상충해결방안" 한국증권법학회 2006

6 박재홍, "자본시장법상 적합성원칙과 설명의무 규제에 대한 검토: 투자자보호와 자본시장의 자율성 제고를 중심으로" 경성대학교 법학연구소 18 (18): 2009

7 홍영만, "자본시장법 유권해석" 세경사 2009

8 한국증권법학회, "자본시장법 - 주석서Ⅰ" 박영사 2009

9 변제호 외, "자본시장법" 지원출판사 2009

10 김건식, "자본시장법" 두성사 2009

11 임재연, "자본시장법" 박영사 2010

12 이경민, "자본시장 통합법(안)상의 투자자 보호" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 9-38, 2007

13 오성근, "일본의 금융상품거래법에 관한 연구" 한국법제연구원 2006

14 이영철, "금융투자상품의 투자권유에 있어서의 설명의무" 법학연구소 20 (20): 775-815, 2008

15 강대섭, "금융투자상품 개념의 포괄주의와 기능별 영업행위 규제의 검토" 법학연구소 51 (51): 585-619, 2010

16 양석완, "금융기관의 금융상품설명의무 및 투자권유의 적합성에 관한 연구" 한국비교법학회 (1) : 2002

17 河本一郎=大武泰南, "金融商品取引法読本" 有斐閣 2008

18 川村正幸, "金融商品取引法" 中央経済社 2008

19 神田秀樹=神作裕之=大崎貞和=松尾直彦, "金商法実務ケースブックⅠ-判例編" 商事法務 2008

20 丸山絵美子, "適合性原則違反を理由とする不法行為の成否" 日本評論社 (611) : 2005

21 上柳敏郎, "適合性原則と説明義務をめぐる判例法理と課題" きんざい出版社 (1535) : 1999

22 정준우, "證券業者의 不當한 投資勸誘行爲의 合理的 規制方案" 한국비교사법학회 11 (11): 427-460, 2004

23 김지환, "證券投資勸誘와 適合性原則" 한국상사법학회 21 (21): 15-487, 2002

24 宮坂昌利, "証券取引における適合性原則違反と不法行為の成否" 有斐閣 (1311) : 2006

25 堀部亮一, "証券取引における適合性原則について" 判例タイムヌ社 (1232) : 2007

26 塩崎勤=秦光昭, "現代裁判法大系白(24) - 銀行取引·証券取引" 新日本法規出版 1998

27 園部秀穂=田中敦, "現代裁判法大系 (23) - 消費者信用取引" 新日本法規出版 1998

28 潮見佳男, "消費者契約法․金融商品販売法と金融取引" 2001

29 森田章, "投資勧誘と適合性の原則" 有斐閣 122 (122): 2000

30 清水俊彦, "投資勧誘と不法行為" 判例タイムズ社 1999

31 松原正至, "投資動誘における自己責任原則r適·合性原則․説明義務" 138 (138): 1995

32 黒沼悦郎, "平成17年度重要判例解説" 有斐閣 (1313) : 2006

33 김택주, "利益保障約定에 의한 證券去來와 投資者保護" 한국상사법학회 21 (21): 12-481, 2002

34 角田美穂子, "オプションの売り取引勧誘と適合性原則違反による不法行為責任" 有斐閣 (306) : 2006

35 Nancy C. Libin, "The Securites Industry and the Internet: A Suitable Match?" 2001 : 601-, 2001

36 Thomas Lee Hazen, "The Law of Securities Regulation, Revised 5th ed." Thomson/West 2006

37 A. S. Jacobs, "The Impact of Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 on Broker Dealers" 57 : 869-, 1972

38 Lewis D. Lowenfels, "Suitability in Securities Transactions" 54 : 1557-, 1999

39 Michael C. Macchiarola, "Securities Linked to the Performance of Tiger Woods? Not Such A Long Shot" 42 : 29-, 2008

40 Robert N. Rapp, "Rethinking Risky Investments for that Little Old Lady: A Realistic Role for Modern Portfolio Theory in Assessing Suitability Obligations of Stockbrokers" 24 : 189-, 1998

41 Jill E. Fisch, "Rethingking the Regulation of Securities Intermediaries" 158 : 1961-, 2010

42 Denis Rice, "Recommendations by a Broker-Dealer: The Requirement For a Reasonable Basis" 25 : 537-, 1974

43 Andrew M. Pardieck, "On Why It Is Time to Reexamine the Suitability Doctrine" 7 : 301-, 2007

44 Norman S. Poser, "Liability of Broker-Dealers for Unsuitable Recommendations to Institutional Investors" 2001 : 1493-, 2001

45 서완석, "KIKO 분쟁에 있어서 판례의 동향과 자본시장법상의 쟁점" 한국상사판례학회 23 (23): 395-449, 2010

46 Louis Loss, "Joel Seligman, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation" Aspen Pub. 2004

47 Roberta S. Karmel, "Is the Shingle Theory Dead?" 52 : 1271-, 1995

48 Harvey E. Bines, "Investment Management Law and Regulation, 2nd ed." Aspen Pub. 2004

49 Norman S. Poser, "Broker-Dealer Law and Regulation" Aspen Pub. 2001

50 Aaron Smith, "A Suitability Standard for Mortgage Brokers: Developing a Common Law Theory" 17 : 377-, 2010

51 Cheryl G. Weiss, "A Review of the Historic Foundations of Broker-Dealer Liability For Breach of Fiduciary Duty" 23 : 65-, 1997