「금융혁신지원 특별법」상 금융규제 샌드박스 제도에 대한 소고(小考) - 혁신 친화적 금융규제체계의 정립 -

김원순 ( Wonsoon Kim ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2021 홍익법학 Vol.22 No.2

전세계적으로 금융산업은 금융시장의 실패와 시스템 위험, 금융소비자 보호 문제 등 금융산업 고유의 특수성으로 인하여 다른 산업에 비해 진입규제, 영업행위 규제, 건전성 규제 등 규제의 수준이 높고 복잡한 것으로 알려져 있다. 사회변화에 따라 다양한 금융수요가 발생하고 여러 방면에서 기술력이 급격히 발전하고 있음에도 불구하고 금융규제로 인하여 혁신적인 금융상품이나 서비스가 새로이 출현하기 어렵다는 지적은 꾸준히 제기되어 왔다. 이러한 문제를 극복하기 위해서 영국 등 일부 국가에서는 일정한 제한조건을 두고 현행 규제의 적용을 배제하거나 완화하여 혁신적인 금융상품ㆍ서비스의 발굴을 목적으로 하는 규제기법으로서 규제샌드박스를 도입하여 운영하기 시작하였다. 우리나라도 2018. 12. 31. 「금융혁신지원 특별법」을 제정하여 샌드박스 제도를 금융 분야에 전격적으로 도입하였고, 현재까지 총 125건의 혁신금융 서비스가 지정되는 등 나름의 성과를 거두고 있다. 금융 규제샌드박스는 포괄적 포지티브 규정중심주의 기반의 기존 국내금융규제체계가 가지는 문제점과 한계를 보완하고 원칙중심주의를 부분적으로 도입하여 혁신 친화적 금융규제체계 정립에 이바지하는 금융기법이라고 평가할 수 있다. 다만 혁신금융서비스 지정을 위한 심사절차의 신속성, 심사기준의 해석 및 적용상 문제점, 전체 지정 건수 대비 유사한서비스 그리고 전체 지정업체 수대비 기존 금융회사가 차지하는 비중이 높은 점, 혁신금융서비스 지정 시 효과에 대한 잘못된 기대 형성과 그로 인한 제도의 변질 운용 등의 측면에서 앞으로 제도 보완을 위한 노력이 필요해 보인다. 따라서 혁신금융서비스 신청, 심사절차, 심사 기준 및 방법, 지정 후 효과 및 관리 등으로 나누어 규제샌드박스 제도 규정과 운영 실무를 검토해보고 제도 이용자의 측면에서 금융 규제샌드박스 제도를 활용하는 데 있어 어떤 애로사항이 발생할 수 있는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 본고에서는 규제샌드박스의 개념과 의의, 핀테크의 발전에 대해 살펴보고 국내 금융규제환경의 특성과 규제샌드박스 도입에 따른 금융규제체제의 변화에 대해 검토한다. 다음으로 금융혁신지원 특별법 제정 및 금융규제 샌드박스 제도의 주요 내용 및 현황에 대해 살펴보고, 파악된 문제점들과 관련하여 제도 개선방안을 제시해본다. Globally, the financial industry is known to have high and complex regulations such as entry, business conduct, governance and soundness regulations, which are introduced because of its regulatory needs, considering the possibility and seriousness of financial market failure, system risk, and financial consumer protection issues. Despite technological advances in various aspects, it has been pointed out that it is difficult to create new innovative financial products or financial services due to these financial regulations. To overcome this problem, some countries, including the UK, have introduced and operated the regulatory sandbox as one of the regulatory techniques aimed at encouraging innovative financial services or fintech businesses by excluding or easing the application of current regulations with certain restrictions. The Republic of Korea also introduced the sandbox system in the financial field through the enactment of the Special Act on Support for Financial Innovation on December 31, 2018, and since then, a total of 125 innovative financial services have been designated, most of them are currently being tested. This is a remarkable achievement that happened in a short time. However, it seems that there are still many drawbacks that need to be improved in terms of the speed of application process, problems in interpretation and application of screening standards, a high proportion of similar services run by existing financial companies compared to the total number of designated innovative financial services or providers. The regulation and operation practices of the regulatory sandbox system need to be reviewed in terms of innovative financial service application, screening procedures, evaluation standards and methods, and process after designation. It is also necessary to look at what difficulties may arise when fintech startups utilize the current financial regulatory sandbox system. In this paper, I examine the significance of the regulatory sandbox and the introduction of overseas regulatory sandboxes first, and then the domestic financial regulatory environment and the effects of the introduction of the regulatory sandbox on korean financial regulatory system. Next, the details of the financial regulatory sandbox system under the Special Act on Financial Innovation Support will be analyzed, and then I suggest a few solutions to improve the current system.

부동산담보신탁에서의 수익권의 성질에 대한 검토

김원순 ( Wonsoon Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.4

As real estate trusts for security purposes(hereinafter “real estate security trust”) are used as a key collateral in real estate project finance, many disputes have arisen and social costs are increasing. In order to increase the legal stability and predictability of transactions, it is necessary to further develop existing discussions about the beneficiary’s rights in real estate security trusts that have not yet been clarified. While the Supreme Court appears to have adopted the majority opinion that views beneficiary rights as personal rights, it is not appropriate to apply a single legal theory or doctrine uniformly to all kinds of trust relationships. It is necessary to understand the nature of the beneficiary rights differently and adjust or adapt doctrines, considering the attributes of each trust contract. The nature of the beneficiary right should not be determined upon the dichotomy between doctrines of personal rights and property rights. Rather it should be examined, while understanding contractual relationship of the real estate security trust through proper interpretation of trust agreements and formulating the most appropriate legal doctrines that can fully appreciate the attributes of such trust contract. Even if the trust system is a very flexible system, it is not possible to freely determine the contents of a trust contract indefinitely upon the agreement between the parties, and as a limitation, consistency with the existing legal system is required. Considering the absence of the equity law in the judicial system of the Republic of Korea, it is hard to resolve every trust-related issue by legislation. The nature of trust contract relationship should be investigated through formation of the court's active case law, and more limits on freedom of contract content are needed. When forming the security trust-related legal principles, it should be considered that the beneficiary right has both personal right-like character and real property right-like character and that the real estate security trust beneficiary’s rights perform a collateral function. In particular, it has properties similar to the non-standard collateral, so-called Yangdo-dambo, so it may be possible to apply some analogy of Yangdo-dambo legal principles to those of real estate security trust. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da225809 decided on Jun. 22, 2017, was the case about the fate of beneficiary rights in real estate security trust when secured loan was transferred to a third party, following the court’s assign order. While the court treated whether separation of beneficiary’s rights and secured claims is allowed as a problem that should be determined upon individual trust contracts, this paper suggests that it is necessary to establish the limit of nature of beneficiary rights that separation of secured bonds and beneficiary rights is not allowed. Beneficiary rights, separated from secured bonds, have only a limited economic meaning and destabilize the legal status of the parties. Although it is important to widely recognize freedom of contracts, it is desirable to force secured bonds and beneficiary rights to be traded together to avoid the uncertainty of the contractual relationship, occurrence of unintended consequences. In the Seoul High Court en banc Decision 2017Na2036022 decided on Jan. 17, 2018, the court ruled that only the beneficiary rights are transferred, and the beneficiary status, including obligations by the trustee, is not transferred. This paper criticizes the court’s approach. It is questionable how the beneficiary right and the beneficiary status can exist separately, and what will be its economic and legal outcome. This also goes against the indivisibility of beneficiary rights.

TDX-1 계열 CCS No.7 메시지 전달부의 레벨 3 기능 구현

이성재(Sungjae Lee),김원순(Wonsoon Kim),조광수(Kwangsoo Cho),한운영(Woonyoung Han) 한국통신학회 1990 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.1990 No.8