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

      KCI등재

      투자중개업자의 법적 지위 ―집합투자증권 계약의 취소 및 부당이득반환청구의 상대방― = Legal Status of the Investment Broker

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108427706

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In the past, in the case of incomplete sales of funds, that is, collective investment securities, investors filed a compensation suit against financial investment companies for default or illegal activities. However, recently, sales companies such as investment brokers have been requested for cancellation and return of unfair gains due to fraud or error.
      This is a matter related to the legal status of an investment broker, and in the past, it was mainly discussed about the legal status of the selling company, that is, whether the investor can claim redemption money against the selling company. The Supreme Court’s ruling is changing before and after the revision of the Securities Investment Trust Business Act in 1998, and it will introduce its existing views, and express its opinion that the revised law and the revised ruling did not follow the majority theory of agency.
      On the other hand, existing academia has discussed the legal status of investment brokers, focusing on laws and theories related to the capital market, and from the investor’s perspective, the legal status of investment brokers is closely related to judicial issues starting from who the investor’s contractual counterparty is. In other words, it is logically reasonable to follow the theory of agent or broker when viewing a collective investment business as a contracting party, and to follow the theory of consignment sales and independent parties when viewing an investment broker as a contracting party. Therefore, if only the contracting party is confirmed, the legal status of the investment broker will be resolved to some extent. In addition, it will be said that the counterparty to the cancellation of the contract is also confirmed. According to the general principle of judicial confirmation of contracting parties, it seems that an investment broker is a contracting party to a collective investment transaction contract, and it is reasonable to regard an investment broker as a quasi-consignment seller under the Capital Markets Act and the Financial Consumer Protection Act. In the end, it seems that the contracting parties determined in accordance with the civil principles do not conflict with the provisions of the Capital Markets Act and the Financial Consumer Protection Act.
      번역하기

      In the past, in the case of incomplete sales of funds, that is, collective investment securities, investors filed a compensation suit against financial investment companies for default or illegal activities. However, recently, sales companies such as ...

      In the past, in the case of incomplete sales of funds, that is, collective investment securities, investors filed a compensation suit against financial investment companies for default or illegal activities. However, recently, sales companies such as investment brokers have been requested for cancellation and return of unfair gains due to fraud or error.
      This is a matter related to the legal status of an investment broker, and in the past, it was mainly discussed about the legal status of the selling company, that is, whether the investor can claim redemption money against the selling company. The Supreme Court’s ruling is changing before and after the revision of the Securities Investment Trust Business Act in 1998, and it will introduce its existing views, and express its opinion that the revised law and the revised ruling did not follow the majority theory of agency.
      On the other hand, existing academia has discussed the legal status of investment brokers, focusing on laws and theories related to the capital market, and from the investor’s perspective, the legal status of investment brokers is closely related to judicial issues starting from who the investor’s contractual counterparty is. In other words, it is logically reasonable to follow the theory of agent or broker when viewing a collective investment business as a contracting party, and to follow the theory of consignment sales and independent parties when viewing an investment broker as a contracting party. Therefore, if only the contracting party is confirmed, the legal status of the investment broker will be resolved to some extent. In addition, it will be said that the counterparty to the cancellation of the contract is also confirmed. According to the general principle of judicial confirmation of contracting parties, it seems that an investment broker is a contracting party to a collective investment transaction contract, and it is reasonable to regard an investment broker as a quasi-consignment seller under the Capital Markets Act and the Financial Consumer Protection Act. In the end, it seems that the contracting parties determined in accordance with the civil principles do not conflict with the provisions of the Capital Markets Act and the Financial Consumer Protection Act.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 김병연, "펀드판매 관련 당사자의 법적 지위와 책임―옵티머스펀드 사건을 계기로―" 한국증권법학회 22 (22): 75-105, 2021

      2 이석환, "투자신탁의 이론과 Prudence Rule" 도서출판 무한 2004

      3 김지정, "투자신탁에 대한 감독행정 규제 변화와 투자신탁 수익증권의 계약관계 규명에 대한 연구" 한국법학원 190 : 200-254, 2022

      4 권영준, "투자신탁과 부당이득" 법무부 (96) : 43-74, 2021

      5 김태병, "증권투자신탁 판매회사의 환매책임" 한국법학원 (84) : 99-129, 2005

      6 손승현, "자본시장법상 투자중개업자로서의 증권회사의 법적 지위와 새로운 유형의 분쟁해결에 대한 고찰" 고려대학교 법무대학원 2016

      7 임재연, "자본시장법" 박영사 2022

      8 김건식, "자본시장법" 두성사 2013

      9 정순섭, "온주 자본시장법"

      10 김윤종, "신탁형 집합투자기구의 법률관계와 당사자들의 법적 지위에 관한 고찰 -투자자 보호의무를 중시하는 판례의 태도를 중심으로" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 149-193, 2021

      1 김병연, "펀드판매 관련 당사자의 법적 지위와 책임―옵티머스펀드 사건을 계기로―" 한국증권법학회 22 (22): 75-105, 2021

      2 이석환, "투자신탁의 이론과 Prudence Rule" 도서출판 무한 2004

      3 김지정, "투자신탁에 대한 감독행정 규제 변화와 투자신탁 수익증권의 계약관계 규명에 대한 연구" 한국법학원 190 : 200-254, 2022

      4 권영준, "투자신탁과 부당이득" 법무부 (96) : 43-74, 2021

      5 김태병, "증권투자신탁 판매회사의 환매책임" 한국법학원 (84) : 99-129, 2005

      6 손승현, "자본시장법상 투자중개업자로서의 증권회사의 법적 지위와 새로운 유형의 분쟁해결에 대한 고찰" 고려대학교 법무대학원 2016

      7 임재연, "자본시장법" 박영사 2022

      8 김건식, "자본시장법" 두성사 2013

      9 정순섭, "온주 자본시장법"

      10 김윤종, "신탁형 집합투자기구의 법률관계와 당사자들의 법적 지위에 관한 고찰 -투자자 보호의무를 중시하는 판례의 태도를 중심으로" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 149-193, 2021

      11 김건식, "수익증권 판매회사의 환매의무" (12) : 2005

      12 김용재, "수익증권 판매회사의 지위 및 환매연기의 요건 -대법원 2010. 10. 14. 선고 2008다13043 판결-" 법학연구소 32 (32): 277-308, 2012

      13 정채웅, "보험업법 해설" 진한엠앤비 2017

      14 박세민, "보험법" 박영사 2011

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼