http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : 신용정보업 (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
신용정보법 제・개정에 따른 신용정보업의 변화 연구: 신용정보법 일부개정법률안(김병욱 의원 대표발의, 2018.11.15.)을 중심으로
최성민 국회입법조사처 2019 입법과 정책 Vol.11 No.3
This study analyzed the pattern of changes in the credit informationindustry following the enactment and amendment of Credit InformationAct. Especially, the revised bill of Credit Information Act(November 15,2018) has actively accommodated the global environmental change of thetransition to Data Economy and adopted overseas legislation cases ofdata regulation in accordance with domestic circumstances. When thisamendment is enacted, the scope of credit information business issegmented, new players in business enter the market, I expect majorchanges in the existing credit information industry. In addition, it isalso anticipated that different strategies among existing and newbusinesses will be implemented and the market size of the creditinformation industry will be expanded significantly as the sales of creditbureaus increase. However, refined policy supplement is highly necessaryto minimize side effects from rapid changes while watching the transitionand growth of credit information industry as data industry. 본 연구는 신용정보법 제・개정에 따른 신용정보업의 변화양상에 대해 분석하였다. 신용정보법은 1995년 제정 이후, 현재까지 총 35차례에 걸쳐 개정이 이루어졌는데 신용정보업은 이로 인한 규제강화 또는 완화에 따라 다양한 변화를 보여왔다. 특히 2018년 11월15일 김병욱 더불어민주당 의원이 대표발의한 신용정보법 개정안은 데이터 경제로의 전환이라는 전세계적인 환경 변화를 적극 수용하고, 해외 데이터 규제와 관련된 입법례를국내 실정에 맞게 도입한 법안이다. 이 개정안이 입법되면, 신용정보업의 업무범위 세분화, 신규 사업자의 시장 진입, 겸업・부수업무 확대에 따른 금융분야 데이터 산업의 성장등 기존 신용정보업의 큰 변화가 예상된다. 또한 기존 사업자와 시장에 새롭게 진입하려는 신규 사업자는 이번 개정안에 대응하기 위해 서로 다른 경영전략을 펼칠 것으로 예상되며 향후 신용정보회사들의 매출액이 크게 증가하면서 신용정보업의 시장규모도 확대될 것으로 보인다. 다만, 데이터 산업으로서의 신용정보업의 변화와 성장을 주시하면서변화에 따른 부작용을 최소화할 수 있는 세밀한 보완정책이 뒷받침되어야 할 것이다.
-
연구논문 : 2015년 개정「신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률」에 관한 법적 검토
고동원 ( Dong Won Ko ) 한국금융정보학회 2015 금융정보연구 Vol.4 No.2
이 글은 2015년 3월 개정되고 2015년 9월부터 시행되는 .신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률.(“신용정보법”)을 법적인 면에서 검토하고 개선 방안을 제시하고 있다. 이 글이 제시하는 주요 개선 방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째,신용정보법이 완전한 특별법으로서 금융기관에 적용되도록 할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 개정법상의 신용정보 집중체계의 개편 방향은 바람직하지 않아 현행 체계가 유지되어야 한다고 본다. 셋째, 신용조회회사의 부수 업무및 겸업 업무 금지도 바람직한 방향은 아니어서 재검토해야 한다. 넷째, 신용정보 제공 시 개별적 동의를 얻도록 하는 것은 규제의 부담과 고객의 불편을 초래하므로 바람직하지 않다. 다섯째, 신용정보회사 등에 대한 과징금 부과 제도의 도입과 관련하여 신용정보 유출자 개인에 대한 과징금 제도도 도입되어야 하며,징수된 과징금은 피해자 기금으로 쓰여야 하고, 과징금 부과 절차의 공정성과 투명성을 확보하기 위해서 청문 절차가 의무화 되어야 한다. 여섯째, 징벌적 손해 배상 책임 제도의 도입은 남용 가능성이 있어 부작용이 더 클 수 있으므로 재검토할 필요가 있다. 일곱째, 유출된 개인신용정보가 불특정 다수에 의한 접근 가능성이 있을 때만 손해 발생이 인정되도록 손해 배상 책임 요건을 제한할 필요가 있다. The big event that credit information of a huge number of individual customers held by three credit card companies leaked in early 2014 led to the environment of enforcing the measures to protect the credit information. In this connection, in March 2015, the Act on Use and Protection of Credit Information (hereinafter "UPCIA"), a relevant law in relation to credit information protection, was comprehensively revised, and the amendments will take into effective from September 2015, except for certain provisions to be effective in March 2016. This article is intended to review the 2015 amendments and to suggest some recommendations. First, the UPCIA should be an exclusive statute to regulate financial institutions as users and suppliers of credit information because under the current system, financial institutions are subject to other relevant laws, such as the “Personal Information Protection Act” and the “Act on Promotion of Use and Protection of Personal Information on Information Communication Networks”, so that it causes much burden in terms of regulatory compliance. Second, the current scheme for a public credit registry operated by the Korea Federation of Banks should be maintained because the newly licensing scheme for establishing a separate public credit registry would not be expected to operate more effectively. Third, the scope of concurrent business and incidental business of a credit bureau company should be expanded. Fourth, officers of financial institutions should be permitted to serve as a designated “credit information protection and management person”. Fifth, newly individual consent scheme for provision of credit information to the third party needs to be converted into a global consent system, because the former scheme may cause inconvenience to customers as well as burden to financial institutions. Sixth, a credit bureau company``s direct access to public information should be allowed. Seventh, a newly launched financial penalty scheme against financial institutions and credit bureau companies whose employees are involved in information leakage should also be applicable to involved individual employees, the procedure of imposing financial penalty should be reformed as enhancing fairness and transparency by adopting mandatory hearings, and a new fund whose sources are from financial penalty needs to be set up and should be used to remedy damaged customers. Eighth, the newly introduced scheme of punitive damages due to information leakage should be reconsidered in that such new system may cause its excessive abuse, giving rise to much burden to financial institutions as well as credit bureaus and may operate as an ineffective system. Overall, the 2015 amendments are believed to give too much emphasis on the protection of credit information, although it might be desirable to maintain a balance between protection and use of credit information. Therefore, the newly introduced systems need to be revisited in terms of aiming at more effective credit information market and industry.
-
이성용 ( Lee Sung-yong ) 한국경찰법학회 2016 경찰법연구 Vol.14 No.2
Previous studies on the private investigative system have led to the wrong direction of "legitimizing" existing illegal activities that collect information on privacy for commercial purposes. This study redefines the approach to private Investigation from the viewpoint of public law. The purpose of this study is to provide a framework of legal analysis to enable legitimate private investigation industry to be constructed and guaranteeing freedom of business activities through the strict regulation of business activities for private investigations that have already fallen into `the widespread illegal state`. In order to discuss the regulation or institutionalization of a particular occupation, the freedom of the occupation guaranteed by the Constitution should be the starting point. From a historical and comparative institutional perspective, private investigation has been naturally created and developed as a professional job to secure citizens` rights, and advanced countries are gradually adopting a strict regulatory system. From the market point of view, current private investigation regulatory policy is a complete failure, and under current legislation it is no longer possible to stop it with any kind of enforcement or control. The private investigation can not and should not be prohibited, as long as the right of the people to know is ascertained through the legitimate procedures permitted by law. However, in the market conditions where the boundary between legal and illegal is vague and more profit can be expected through illegal activities, it should be regulated through strict qualifications system and licensing system.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
