자본시장법상의 금융소비자 보호

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The reason why developed nations in the area of finance has streamlined the consumer protection system in large scale derives from the recognition that this measure is of vital importance not only in protecting the comparatively weak consumers in finance area but also in building a confidence in capital market.
Through this measure, it will be possible to increase the wealth of nation at the end with a concomitant effect of nurturing the potential of financial investment industry.
Under this consideration, the writer has examined the related financial consumer protection clauses of the current law and suggested carefully some alternatives to the seemingly problems or loopholes in the following.
First of all, the writer suggests that an autographed confirmation document system under the current law should be abolished considering the reality that ex-post regulatory measures usually play a role only as a formality.
In this sense, the writer suppose that deposition or recording would rather secure the substantial implementation of explanatory obligation in the law.
Second, the writer suggests that the explanatory obligation of financial investment company can be exempt in case where clients even though they are general investors, positively express their position that they already know the key points of the financial product concerned for the purpose of expediting smoother trade.
Third, it is necessary to specify more definitely the extent to which the explanatory obligation is performed.
Fourth, it will be hopeful that the contract document in which statutory clauses are included. should be delivered to the prospective investors before contract is concluded so that the investors can check the necessary points in deciding whether they do a real deal or not, in the case of Japan.
Fifth, it is necessary to supplement policies to prevent the misrepresentation of Article 49 (3) of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Industry Act (the Act) and Article 54 of Enforcement Ordinance of the Act.
Sixth, the legislative measures which could prevent manipulations of the Act that forbids unsolicited call are taken into account in the light of the Article 36 (6) of Japanese Financial Instrument and Exchange Law.
Seventh, the writer suggests that all solicitation against will should not be forbidden by law but prohibited solicitation against will should be specifically enacted by risks with regard to an appropriate interpretation of Article 49 (4) of the Act and the case of United Kingdom.
Eighth, under the Act the time period which terminates the contract is 7-days after receiving the contract documents, but an extended period of time longer than 7-days may be necessary considering the professional financial knowledge and the complexity of financial products.
Ninth, confirmation system as to investment information should also be streamlined under the on-line trade.
Tenth, to secure effectiveness of the rule of suitability, it seems to be necessary to enact a provision which impose administrative or criminal liability to officers and staffs in the financial investment area.
Eleventh, appropriate measures which are comprised of preliminary agreement procedures in the settlement of a dispute and legal grounds as to that agreement should be established.
Twelfth, in reality, it is somewhat impossible for general investors to prove the fact that damage is occurred, it is quite right that the burden of proof be converted to the party who was claimed to cause the damage itself in the respect of protection of investors.
Finally, the writter suggests that the operative word in the terms and conditions which is favorable to the investors and is unfavorable to the financial entities should be enacted a provision.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 금융소비자의 보호와 금융소비자의 개념
• Ⅲ. 자본시장법상의 금융소비자 보호의 문제점 및 개선방안
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 參考文獻
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 121-, 2009

2 자본시장연구원, 2010

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

4 안문택, "증권거래법체계" 육법사 1985

5 "자본시장법(주석서Ⅰ)" 박영사 2009

6 변제호, "자본시장법" 지원출판사 2009

7 임재연, "자본시장법" 박영사 2010

8 안수현, "은행소비자 보호의 개선 과제-펀드 판매를 중심으로" 은행법학회 1 (1): 103-131, 2008

9 서완석, "유가증권 발행시장의 공시제도" 한국학술정보(주) 2007

10 "연합뉴스, 2008년 4월 21일자 기사"

11 권기훈, "선물업자의 설명의무" 한국상사판례학회 (17) : 247-279, 2004

12 "서울중앙지방법원 2009. 6. 23. 선고 2008가합99578 판결"

13 "서울경제신문, 2009년 8월 31일자 기사"

14 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2000

15 "머니투데이 2020년 5월 12일자 기사"

16 "머니투데이 2010년 5월 17일자 기사"

17 김성태, "대한민국을 바꾸는 자본시장통합법" 한스미디어 2008

18 "대법원 2007. 4. 12. 선고 2004다62641 판결"

19 안수현, "금융소비자의 보호와 자본시장법의 과제" 2008

20 김학근, "금융소비자보호원 신설 비효율적이다, 한국일보 2009년 12월 12일자 기사"

21 정순섭, "금융규제개혁과 금융소비자 보호" 2010

22 "금융감독원 자료, 신동아, 2009.01.01 통권 592호"

23 "金融審議会 金融分科会 第一部会 報告 ‘投資サ-ビス法(假称)に 向けて’(2005년 12월 22일)"

24 松尾直彦, "金融商品賞取引法制の政令·內閣府令等の槪要" (1807) :

25 川村正幸, "金融商品取引法" 中央經濟社 293-, 2008

26 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

27 近藤光男, "証券取引法入門 (新訂 第二版)" 商事法務 2003

28 "http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p005098.pdf"

29 Roger W. Reiinsch, "Trust your Broker?: Suitability, Modern Portfolio Theory, and Expert Witness" 17 : 173-, 2004

30 Adam J. Levitin, "The Consumer Financial Protection Agency" 1789 : 105-112, 2010

31 Conrad G. Bahlke, "Suitability and Appropriateness of Derivative Instru" 931 : 29-, 1996

32 Louis Loss, "Securities Regulation (3d ed)" 1980

33 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

34 Kyle Gaffaney, "Overview of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)" 22 : 269-, 2009

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

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

37 田中誠二, ".再全訂 コンメンタ-ル證券取引法, 511頁" 勁草書房 511-, 2006

38 안수현, "(가칭)자본시장통합법과 소비자보호법의 접점 - ‘금융소비자의 보호’" 한국증권법학회 7 (7): 199-248, 2006