Research on Measures for Establishment of Compliance Officer System in Korea

김태명 한국전문경영인학회 2017 專門經營人硏究 Vol.20 No.3

The compliance officer system has long been established in advanced countries including the US, the UK, Germany, and Japan. Moreover, it is widely considered an essential part of the management in globally renowned companies such as Microsoft and GE. For instance, no listed company in the US shall make a public disclosure until its corporate disclosure materials are not signed by the compliance officer. In addition, companies with efficient compliance officer systems can get up to 60% relief on legal penalties even in case they are sentenced with fines from violation of relevant laws. Above all, due to the strong social emphasis on business ethics, companies in advanced countries are actively introducing compliance officer systems to promote their corporate image. However, according to the business report of Financial Supervisory Service issued in June 2016, only 183 companies out of 311 listed companies in Korea that are required to appoint compliance officers have compliance officer system in place, which is only 58.8% of companies supposed to have the system. The rest 41.2% of companies haven't appointed their compliance officers yet. To successfully establish the compliance officer system in Korea, it is necessary to take the following measures. Firstly, the number of companies that are required to introduce the system should be increased in phases. Practically, it would be difficult to expand the coverage in a short period of time. But the number of companies mandated to have the system in place must be increased gradually. Secondly, not only listed private companies but also public companies that have public influence or concerned to public interest should also be required to adopt the system. Next, the status of compliance officer must be secured and their qualification criteria need to be eased. Currently the work scope of compliance officers is redundant with that of auditors (Audit Committee). Moreover, the qualification doesn't need to be limited to those from certain vocational background, for instance lawyers. Also, there should be sanctions against companies that haven't appointed compliance officers yet. There is no statutory penalty to impose sanctions in case listed companies don't have a proper compliance officer system. To help the compliance officer system take root in Korea, it is essential to have more practical and legally binding measures such as sanctions. The fifth measure is giving incentives to companies that appoint compliance officers. Measures including tax benefits, exemption or reduction of criminal punishment and fines shall be considered. The sixth is computerization of most compliance officer tasks. That will enable compliance officers to focus on their core tasks, helping them to perform their work with higher efficiency in a more strategic manner. Seventh, the compliance officer system stated in the Korean Commercial Act and the system in specified in other finance related laws shall be integrated into one to ensure consistency. Finally, the role and work scope pertaining to internal controls shall be clearly distinguished and the work independence must be guaranteed. As this research places a strong focus on suggesting efficient measures to establish the compliance officer system in Korea, empirical analysis is not included herein.

A Plan for Efficient Operation of Internal Control System in Korean Financial Institutions: Focus on Compliance Officer System

박형근,이재춘 대한경영학회 2015 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.28 No.6

A compliance officer was introduced as a standing position of financial institutions after the Asian Financial Crisis to improve corporate governance and transparency of business management. As the Banking Act was amended on January 21, 2000, an article on internal controls, etc. was newly established and it mandated banks to assign compliance officers. A compliance officer is in charge of establishing a compliance system that ensures employees of financial institutions abide by relevant laws and regulations in performing their duties and operating/monitoring the system. As such, a compliance officer should monitor whether the internal control standards are observed and investigate and report any violation of the internal control standards to the standing auditors and the Audit Committee, etc. For efficient operation of the compliance officer system of the financial institutions in Korea, the following measures should be sought. First, compliance culture needs to be established where employees have strong awareness of the importance of internal control and strictly comply with it. Secondly, responsibility of the top management for supervising internal control problems, if any, shall be strengthened. Thirdly, the financial authorities should set an example for strong compliance. Next, clear distinction between internal control and compliance should be made. Then the role and business scope of compliance officers should be adjusted. The sixth is to improve awareness of the top management, and the seventh is enhancement of the status of compliance officers. The eighth is granting appropriate position and authority to compliance officers. Finally, the ninth is to redefining the role of compliance officer and the Audit Committee (auditors). This study has two main implications. Firstly, the efficient operational plan for compliance officer system in financial institutions suggested in the paper would be used as a valuable policy material to strengthen and solidify the internal control systems in Korea. Secondly, establishment of compliance culture, one of factors for efficient operation of compliance officer system, will contribute to building an organizational culture of compliance that makes compliance ethics and compliance culture fully settled in terms of practical aspects of the compliance officer system in financial institutions. This study will limit its research scope to suggestion of measures for efficient operation of the compliance officer systems of the financial institutions in Korea. Therefore, a following empirical study shall be conducted on the effectiveness of the compliance officer system in Korean financial institutions.

준법경영의 확립을 위한 준법지원인제도의 문제점 및 개선방안 - 준법지원인의 법적지위를 중심으로 -

정준우 한국상사법학회 2015 商事法硏究 Vol.34 No.2

The Commercial Act amended 2011 has adapted the compliance officer system for the compliance management. A listed company, therefore, determined by Presidential Decree in light of the scale of assets, etc. shall establish guidelines and procedures that their employees and directors must observe in order to abide by Acts and subordinate statutes and make their management appropriate when the employees and directors perform their duties(§542-13(1)). A listed company shall have one or more persons responsible for the work on abiding by the compliance guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “compliance officer")(§542-13(2)), in order to appoint and remove a compliance officer, a listed company shall obtain a resolution of the board of directors(§542-13(4)). And a compliance officer shall check whether the compliance guidelines are complied with and shall report the outcomes thereof to the board of directors(§542-13(3)). The term of a compliance officer shall be three years, and he/she shall work full time(§542-13(6)). The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to a compliance officer, as long as no specific provisions to the contrary exist in other Acts: Provided, That the provisions of paragraph (6) shall preferentially apply in cases where the term of a compliance officer under other Act is shorter than the term set forth in paragraph (6)(§542-13(11)). And no listed company shall unfairly disadvantage a person who was a compliance officer in personnel matters for reasons related to his/her performance of duties(§542-13(10)). There, however, are many legal problems in the provisions relating to the legal status of compliance officer under the Commercial Act. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the problems implicated these provisions relating to the legal status of compliance officer, and I have proposed the improving methods for settlement of such legal problems. The top priority for improving the compliance management culture is firming up the legal status of compliance officer. The second, that should be reviewed prospectively for the adjunct of compliance officer, if it can help with compliance management without compromising the independence of compliance officer. The third, the provisions relating to dismissal of compliance officer should be placed in the Commercial Act. The forth, it is necessary to be included the result of election and dismissal and job evaluation results of compliance officer in the public announcement, should strengthen the dismissal requirements of compliance officer. The fifth, to perform the supporting task of compliance management, the compliance officer must build institutions and other organic business cooperation. Finally, when the compliance officer report the result of their task for compliance management to the board of directors, that must be submitted to auditors at the same time, and the auditor must also notify the compliance officer when reporting audit results to the board of directors or the shareholders' meeting.

Research on Measures for Establishment of Compliance Officer System in Korea

Tae-Myung Kim 한국전문경영인학회 2017 專門經營人硏究 Vol.20 No.3

준법지원인제도는 미국, 영국, 독일, 일본 등 외국에서는 이미 일반화된 지 오래고, 마이크로소프트, GE 등 세계적인 기업에서 필수적인 제도로 정착되어 있다. 미국의 상장회사들은 기업공시 자료에 준법지원인(compliance officer)의 서명이 없으면 공시 자체가 어렵다. 또한 법위반 행위로 벌금형을 부과받을 때도 효과적인 준법지원제도가 마련되어 있는 회사는 법정형의 60%까지 감경받고 있다. 무엇보다 기업윤리를 중시하는 사회분위기 덕분에 기업들은 앞다투어 준법지원인제도를 도입하여 기업 이미지 제고에 활용하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라에서는 금융감독원의 2016년 6월 사업보고서에 따르면 준법지원인 선임 대상 311개 상장사 중 58.8%인 183개 회사만이 준법지원인을 두고 있으며, 41.2%에 해당하는 128개 회사는 아직까지 준법지원인을 선임하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 준법지원인제도를 올바르게 정착시키기 위해서는 다음과 같은 방안이 모색되어야 할 것이다. 첫째, 준법지원인제도 도입 대상 회사를 단계적으로 확대하여야 한다. 현실적으로 갑작스레 적용 대상 회사를 확대하는 것은 어렵더라도 단계적으로 준법지원인 선임 대상 회사를 늘려 나가야 한다. 둘째, 상장회사와 더불어 공공성이 큰 공기업도 준법지원인제 도입 대상에 포함시켜야 한다. 셋째, 준법지원인의 지위를 명확히 하고, 그 자격기준을 완화할 필요가 있다. 준법 지원인과 감사(감사위원회)의 업무범위가 중복되고 있다. 또한 자격을 반드시 특정 직역(변호사)에 국한시킬 필요는 없다. 넷째, 준법지원인 미선임기업에 대한 제재가 필요하다. 상장회사들이 이를 선임하지 않은 경우에 제재를 가하는 처벌 규정이 없는 상태이다. 준법지원인제도를 정착시키기 위해서는 현실적으로 제재와 같은 의무화를 위한 방안이 필요하다. 다섯째, 준법지원인 선임기업에 대한 인센티브 부여가 필요하다. 준법지원인 도입 기업에 대한 세제 혜택, 형사처벌 감면, 과징금 감면 등의 방안이 모색되어야 한다. 여섯째, 준법지원인의 업무 대부분을 전산화 한다면, 준법지원인은 본질적인 업무에 집중할 수 있어 보다 효율적인 업무 수행을 통하여 전략적 준법지원업무를 수행 할 수 있을 것이다. 일곱째, 상법상 준법지원인제도와 금융관련법상 준법감시인제도를 단일법으로 통합할 필요가 있다. 여덟째, 내부통제업무와 관련하여 직무가 명확히 구분되고 업무의 독립성이 보장되어야 한다. 본 연구는 준법지원인제도의 효율적인 정착방안을 제시하는데 주안점을 두고 있기 때문에 실증적 분석은 제외하였다. The compliance officer system has long been established in advanced countries including the US, the UK, Germany, and Japan. Moreover, it is widely considered an essential part of the management in globally renowned companies such as Microsoft and GE. For instance, no listed company in the US shall make a public disclosure until its corporate disclosure materials are not signed by the compliance officer. In addition, companies with efficient compliance officer systems can get up to 60% relief on legal penalties even in case they are sentenced with fines from violation of relevant laws. Above all, due to the strong social emphasis on business ethics, companies in advanced countries are actively introducing compliance officer systems to promote their corporate image. However, according to the business report of Financial Supervisory Service issued in June 2016, only 183 companies out of 311 listed companies in Korea that are required to appoint compliance officers have compliance officer system in place, which is only 58.8% of companies supposed to have the system. The rest 41.2% of companies haven't appointed their compliance officers yet. To successfully establish the compliance officer system in Korea, it is necessary to take the following measures. Firstly, the number of companies that are required to introduce the system should be increased in phases. Practically, it would be difficult to expand the coverage in a short period of time. But the number of companies mandated to have the system in place must be increased gradually. Secondly, not only listed private companies but also public companies that have public influence or concerned to public interest should also be required to adopt the system. Next, the status of compliance officer must be secured and their qualification criteria need to be eased. Currently the work scope of compliance officers is redundant with that of auditors (Audit Committee). Moreover, the qualification doesn't need to be limited to those from certain vocational background, for instance lawyers. Also, there should be sanctions against companies that haven't appointed compliance officers yet. There is no statutory penalty to impose sanctions in case listed companies don't have a proper compliance officer system. To help the compliance officer system take root in Korea, it is essential to have more practical and legally binding measures such as sanctions. The fifth measure is giving incentives to companies that appoint compliance officers. Measures including tax benefits, exemption or reduction of criminal punishment and fines shall be considered. The sixth is computerization of most compliance officer tasks. That will enable compliance officers to focus on their core tasks, helping them to perform their work with higher efficiency in a more strategic manner. Seventh, the compliance officer system stated in the Korean Commercial Act and the system in specified in other finance related laws shall be integrated into one to ensure consistency. Finally, the role and work scope pertaining to internal controls shall be clearly distinguished and the work independence must be guaranteed. As this research places a strong focus on suggesting efficient measures to establish the compliance officer system in Korea, empirical analysis is not included herein.

상법상 준법지원인제도의 문제와 해결

주기종(Ju, Gi-Jong) 한국법학회 2012 법학연구 Vol.48 No.-

준법지원인제도는 2011년 4월에 개정되어 2012년 4월부터 시행되어 일정 규모 이상의 상장회사는 준법지원인을 의무적으로 두어야 한다. 준법지원인제도를 도입하면서 준법지원인의 활동에 대한 독립성 및 실효성의 확보의 필요성, 책임부분의 미흡, 준법감시제도 등 다른 내부통제제도와의 불균형으로 인한 문제 제기 등 제도보완의 필요성이 제기되어 왔다. 그리하여 이 연구는 상법상의 준법지원인제도의 내용을 살피면서 그 실효성을 제고하고 위해 개선되어야 할 문제점을 찾아보고 이에 대한 해결 방안을 모색하고자 하는 논문이다. 준법지원인의 법적지위와 관련하여 자격요건의 강화 및 변호사인 준법지원인에 대한 재교육을 통한 질 향상의 필요성, 준법지원인의 해임에 따른 손해배상청구제도 마련, 준법지원인의 임기 및 겸직제한, 준법지원인제도의 임의적인 선택제로의 전환, 준법지원인제도와 준법감시인제도와의 기능적 중복 관계, 준법지원인제도의 활성화를 위한 인센티브의 확대 및 제도적 보완책, 준법지원인의 독립성 확보 방안 등 개선할 점을 제시하였으며, 상법개정을 대비하여 더욱 면밀한 검토를 통하여 준법지원인제도에 관한 문제점을 최소화할 수 있도록 계속적인 연구가 필요하다는 것을 논하였다. Compliance officer system was revised on April 2011 and has been enforced since April 2012. And under this system, sizable listed companies should have compliance officers obligatorily. As introducing compliance officer system, the needs to supplement the system such as the necessity securing independence and effectiveness to the activities of compliance officer system, insufficiency of charging parts, problem suggestion due to the imbalance with other internal control system including compliance monitoring system have been suggested. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find out the problems to be improved for raising effectiveness by searching compliance officer system in commercial law and to search the solution to this. We have suggested the improvements such as the necessity of quality improvement through reinforcing of qualification in relevant with legal position of compliance officer and re-training to compliance officer (lawyer), the preparation of compensation claim system against the dismissal of compliance officer, the restriction of tenure and additional job of compliance officer, the transition of compliance officer system into voluntary selection system, and the functional repetitive relation between compliance officer system and compliance monitoring officer system, the extended incentive and systematic supplements for vitalization of compliance officer system, and the plan to secure the independence of compliance officer. We also discussed that the continuous study is needed to minimize the problems about compliance officer system through more close review by preparing to the revision of commercial law.

준법지원인의 선임에 관한 규제와 그 개선방안

정준우(Joon-Woo Chung) 한국기업법학회 2015 企業法硏究 Vol.29 No.3

2011년 개정상법은 국민경제에 대한 영향력이 큰 상장회사의 법률적 위험을 효과적으로 관리하고 회사 내부에 준법경영문화를 정착시키기 위하여 준법지원인제도를 새롭게 도입하였다. 그동안 각종 기업비리에 따른 경제적 출혈이 종국적으로 국민경제의 부담으로 전가되는 실례를 경험하면서 사후적인 피해구제나 책임추궁보다는 사전적인 위험의 점검과 관리가 더 중요하다는 사회적 공감대가 형성되었기 때문이다. 현재 자산총액 5천억 원 이상인 상장회사는 준법통제기준을 마련하고 임직원의 준법통제기준의 준수 여부를 점검하는 준법지원인을 두어야 한다. 그런데 유관기관의 2014년 설문조사 결과를 보면, 의무선임 대상회사의 약 50%가 여전히 준법지원인을 두고 있지 않았고 다양한 미선임사유들을 제시하고 있다. 따라서 규제의 실효성을 확보하기 위해서는 선임의무를 이행하지 아니한 회사들에 대한 제재조치를 명확히 해야 하고, 준법지원인의 미선임사유를 분석하여 합리적인 사항에 대해서는 전향적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 그리고 자산총액의 선임의무 적용기준으로서의 적합성에 대한 논란이 있는 만큼 자본금 · 부채 · 종업원수 등을 복합적으로 활용하여 새로운 적용기준을 정립해야 한다. 상법상 준법지원인은 변호사와 법학교수 및 기타 법률적 지식과 경험이 풍부한 사람으로서 대통령령이 정한 사람만이 될 수 있는데, 이러한 자격요건은 몇 가지 문제점을 내포하고 있어 합리적인 해석과 입법적 보완이 필요하다. 먼저 변호사의 경우에는 일정한 요건을 구비한 외국변호사에게도 자격을 부여하되, 모든 변호사는 일정기간(3년 내지 5년) 이상 기업실무에서 관련업무에 종사할 것을 요구해야 한다. 그리고 법학석사학위 이상의 학위소지자로서 연구기관이나 대학에서 연구원 또는 전임강사 이상의 합산근무경력이 5년 이상인 사람에게도 준법지원인의 자격을 부여할 필요가 있다. 한편 상장회사에서 감사 등의 직위 또는 그에 관련된 법무부서에서의 합산경력이 10년 이상 또는 법학석사학위 이상의 학위를 취득한 후 5년 이상이라고 하여 법률적 지식과 경험이 풍부하다고 인정할 수는 없으므로 실제적으로 준법지원업무나 그에 준하는 업무를 수행한 경우에만 준법지원인의 자격이 있다고 보아야 한다. 또한 준법지원인의 적격성을 확보하기 위해 적극요건과 함께 결격사유도 규정해야 하고, 준법지원인의 법적지위를 확고히 하기 위하여 해임요건을 감사위원에 준하는 수준으로 가중해야 한다. The transparency in the corporate management and ethics has been strengthened according to global trends. As a result of enhancing the compliance management and social responsibility of companies, international competitiveness is expected to improve by introducing the compliance officer system. Accordingly, the Commercial Act amended 2011 has adapted compliance officer system for the compliance management. Under the Commercial Act amended 2011, to put it concretely, a listed company determined by Presidential Decree in light of the scale of assets, etc. shall establish guidelines and procedures that their employees and directors must observe in order to abide by Acts and subordinate statutes and make their management appropriate when the employees and directors perform their duties (hereinafter referred to as “compliance guidelines”)(§542-13(1)). A listed company determined by Presidential Decree in light of the scale of assets, etc. shall have one or more persons responsible for the work on abiding by the compliance guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “compliance officer”) (§542-13(2)). In order to appoint and remove a compliance officer, meanwhile, a listed company under paragraph (1) shall obtain a resolution of the board of directors(§542-13(4)). A compliance officer shall be appointed from among the following persons: 1) A person qualified as an attorney at law; 2) A person who is or was in a position of an assistant professor or higher teaching law at a school as provided for in Article 2 of the Higher Education Act; 3) Other persons with considerable knowledge and experience in law, who are determined by Presidential Decree(§542-13(5)). And the term of a compliance officer shall be three years, and he/she shall work full time(§542-13(6)). A compliance officer shall check whether the compliance guidelines are complied with and shall report the outcomes thereof to the board of directors (§542-13(3)), and shall perform his/her duties with the due care of a good manager(§542-13(7)). There, however, are many legal problems in the provisions relating to employment duty, eligibility conditions and appointment requirements of a compliance officer. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the legal problems implicated these provisions relating to employment duty, eligibility conditions and appointment requirements of a compliance officer, and I have proposed the reform measures for settlement of such legal problems relating to appointment of a compliance officer.

형법적 준법지원인의 개념과 역할에 대한 고찰

김재윤 ( Kim Jae-yoon ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2017 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.38

일반적으로 컴플라이언스(Compliance)란 “모든 기업과 기업의 임직원이 업무수행과 관련하여 접하는 법규범, 회사규범, 기업윤리 등 제반 규범상 명시된 요구나 금지를 준수하도록 사전에 상시적으로 통제하고 감독하는 제도”라고 말할 수 있다. 이러한 컴플라이언스의 개념은 형법적 관점에서 볼 때 기업범죄의 사전예방을 위한 법적 조치로서의 성격을 포함하고 있다. 왜냐하면 형법적 측면에서 컴플라이언스는 기업범죄의 사전예방을 위해 특별형법 및 부수형법을 포함하는 광의의 형법이 규정하고 있는 규범적 내용의 준수를 확보하기 위한 조치로 이해될 수 있기 때문이다. 이러한 이해로부터 형법적 컴플라이언스의 개념이 도출될 수 있다. 형법적 컴플라이언스는 일반적 컴플라이언스의 특수한 부분으로서 기업 내부에서 발생하는 임직원에 의한 범죄행위를 방지하기 위해 필요한 일체의 조치라고 할 수 있다. 무엇보다 형법적 컴플라이언스의 핵심적인 기능은 기업 내부에서 발생할 수 있는 범죄행위의 방지에 있다. 즉 기업은 형법적 컴플라이언스를 통해 임직원이 형법상 범죄행위나 행정법상의 위반행위를 범하지 않도록 적절한 조치를 취해야 한다. 만약 기업이 형법적 컴플라이언스 조치를 취하지 않는 경우 일차적으로 해당 기업에게 피해를 끼친다. 뿐만 아니라 거래처, 고객, 일반 투자자, 나아가 전체 국민 경제 등 여러 이해 관계자에게 다양한 유·무형의 피해를 끼치게 된다. 그로인해 한편으로 손해배상 또는 과태료나 과징금 등의 부과를 통해 기업에게 재산상 손실을 가져오고, 다른 한편으로 시장에서의 기업 지위의 하락, 고객의 상실 등의 형태로 기업의 사회적 평판과 관련한 손해가 발생하게 된다. 범죄행위의 방지라는 형법적 컴플라이언스의 핵심적 기능이 제대로 작동되기 위해서는 형법적 준법지원인을 중심으로 한 컴플라이언스 조직과 시스템의 견고한 구축이 요구된다. 이 때 형법적 준법지원인은 무엇보다 기업 내부에서 임직원에 의한 기업에 대한 범죄행위를 방지하고, 제한된 범위 내에서 기업 외부에서 제3자에 의한 기업의 법익침해의 위험을 방지하며, 복합기업의 경우 외국 자회사의 법익을 침해하는 범죄행위를 방지하는 주요한 역할을 담당한다. 다만 형법적 준법지원인이 부담하는 이러한 범죄행위의 방지의무로부터 이들에게 언제나 자동적으로 보증인지위와 보증의무가 도출되는 것은 아니고 이들의 선임계약 체결 시에 구체적인 보증의무의 범위가 명확히 규정되어야 한다. 그리고 형법적 준법지원인의 역할과 관련하여 한 가지 주의할 점은 형법적 준법지원인의 역할에 제3자(예컨대 고객)의 법익보호는 포함되지 않는다는 것이다. 왜냐하면 형법적 준법지원인은 제3자의 법익(또는 공공의 일반적 이익)을 보호하기 위해서가 아니라 기업의 내부나 외부로부터 범죄행위로 인한 기업의 손실을 방지하기 위해서 존재하는 사람이기 때문이다. Normally ‘Compliance’ can be defined as “System for regularly supervising and regulating enterprises and its employee in advance to comply with demands and prohibitions specified in various norms such as laws, company rules, business ethics”. This concept of compliance has its character as a legal action for preventing corporate crimes in the perspective of criminal law. It is because compliance in the aspects of criminal law can be understood as an action for securing compliance of normative contents defined in a broad range of crimes including special and appendant criminal laws. The concept of criminal compliance can be drawn from this understanding. Criminal compliance is a special part of normal compliance, which is a whole system of actions necessary to prevent corporate crimes by employees. Above all, the key function of criminal compliance is preventing crimes that can happen in companies. That is, the companies should take appropriate action to prevent its employees from committing a penal crime or breaking administrative laws. If the company does not take such action, its damage primarily goes to that company. Moreover, accounts, customers, investors, and furthermore, the whole national economy can be damaged too. From this, on the one hand, the company will experience property loss due to compensation or imposed fine, penalties, and on the other hand, the damage related to the company’s social reputation will occur, such as dropped market position of the company, and its customer loss. To make the key function of criminal compliance, which is preventing criminal act, function properly, it is necessary to construct solid system and organization of compliance around criminal compliance officer. This criminal compliance officer prevents employees from committing crime toward the company, third party from infringing the company’s benefit of law from the exterior under limited bound, foreign subsidiaries from entrenching benefits of law, if it is the case of conglomerate. However, such duty of crime prevention which criminal compliance officer imposes does not always automatically cause the status or obligation as a guarantee, and specific range of duty of guarantee should be specified while making a contract for designating officers. Also, one thing to be careful is that protection of benefits of law(such as customers’) is not included in the role of criminal compliance officer. It is because criminal compliance officer is not for protecting benefits of law of third party(or general interests of public), but instead for preventing the loss of company that may occur from crimes from interior or exterior of the company.

내부통제와 준법지원인제도

김강수(Kang Soo Kim) 중앙법학회 2011 中央法學 Vol.13 No.2

Companies can develop serious regulatory and 1ega1 prob1ems when they have breakdowns in interna1 contro1s. The pain of non-compliance and recent high profile compliance failures have caused companies to budget more money to proactive1y address those types of prob1ems. Compliance programs are a species of internal controls. typically a tai10red set of devices to meet externally- imposed non-financial mandates. A study on the prob1ems and solutions of internal contro1 system and compliance officer is as follows. First. with regard to the scope of interna1 contro1 system and compliance`s ro1e. interna1 control system can be devide financial and non-financia1 controls, to manage risk and compliance can be comprised in non-financia1 control. Second, efficient compliance program can be secured through the compliance officer`s independence and expertise. an objective standard for the ro1e of compliance officer and an audit or audit committee should be showed. Third, compliance must have the position and situation who can cope with externa1 or interna1 pressure. it is necessary to make adopt compliance system by compu1sion. but it is desirable to use the way which the corporation established compliance program can be remitted a fine. This article makes a study on the propriety of introduction of ``internal control system`` and ``compliance officer``. The detailed assertions of the article are as follows. First, in regard of the compliance officer, the officer had better be separated from the legal and audit departments, and the officer needs to be under control by a board instead of an internal auditor. Besides, the compliance officer is recommended to be separated from a person directly in charge of the compliance work. In the case, the paper suggests that there be no qualification on the compliance officer, but the person in charge of the compliance affairs be a lawyer including a foreign lawyer. Second, with regard to the scope of the system and a legal basis, the scope of the internal control system for a listed company needs to be limited to the compliance of laws and regulations excluding risk management operation. Also, the internal control system had better be obligated not by a statute but by a more flexible rule of Korea Exchange. Third, the study shows how much important the incentives are for more adoption of the compliance system by listed companies by introducing good examples of other countries.

준법감시인의 편제와 보고체계에 관한 검토

조창훈(Cho, Chang Hoon),이정진(Lee, Jung Jin) 한국증권법학회 2013 증권법연구 Vol.14 No.1

“준법감시인이 어떤 편제로 누구에게 보고하는 것이 가장 바람직하며 효과적일까?” 영미권의 준법감시인은 경영진을 보좌함으로써 준법감시 실패위험에 대비하기 위한 자로 업무집행을 담당하지만, 자본시장법에서 CEO의 추천을 받아 이사회에서 선임되는 준법감시인을 상근감사 또는 감사위원회에 보고하는 자로 규정하고 있어서 (준법감시 관련) 지배구조 전반에 혼란을 주고 있다. 여기서 “그렇다면 준법감시인은 상근감사나 감사위원회의 직속편제가 되어 그들에게만 보고해야 하는가?”라는 당연한 질문이 시작한다. 영미권에서는 준법감시인의 편제를 고려함에 있어, 준법감시인이 독립된 부서로 조직의 장(長)에게 직접 보고하는지, 아니면 CRO 또는 법무책임자, 감사ㆍ재무ㆍ보안ㆍ인사책임자에게 보고해야 하는지에 대해서 상당한 격론이 있어 왔다. 준법감시인이 CEO나 이사회에 직접 보고하지 않고, 다른 부서장에게 편제가 되어 보고해야 한다면 이미 그 자체가 ‘2류’임을 나타내는 것이기 때문이다. 준법감시인의 편제 및 보고체계에 대한 논의는, 준법감시 기능이 효과적으로 작동하기 위한 환경을 규율하는 측면에서 매우 중요하다. 준법감시인의 편제는 준법감시인의 독립성과 전문성을 결정하게 하는 통제환경의 중요한 구성요소이다. 그렇다면 “준법감시인이 어떤 편제로 누구에게 보고하는 것이 가장 바림직하며 효과적일까?”라는 근본적인 질문이 다시 이어진다. 이론상, 이사회에서 선임되는 준법감시인은 등기이사 또는 업무집행지시자를 상위라인으로 하는 총 4가지의 편제구조를 가질 수 있다. ① CEO의 직속편제, ② 상근감사(감사위원회)의 직속편제, ③ 내부회계관리자의 직속편제, ④ 위험관리인의 직속 편제 등이다. 이에 본 연구는 준법감시인의 4가지 편제구조를 각각 법규적ㆍ실무적으로 검토하였다. 개별 편제구조가 가지는 장ㆍ단점을 정리하면서 현 준법감시인 제도의 문제점과 개선사항을 고찰하였다. 결과적으로, 준법감시인의 편제 및 보고체계를 법규에서 규정하는 것보다 일선 회사의 특수성을 반영하여 가장 준법감시 기능이 효과적으로 작용할 수 있는 편제로 설정하는 것이 중요하다. “What is the Best Practice of Organizational Governance for Compliance officers” The western financial institutions compliance officer’s main role is to be prepared for compliance failure risks, by assisting the CEO or the senior management. However, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act stipulates that the compliance officer, who is actually appointed by the BOD with the CEO’s recommendation, is whom who reports to the fulltime auditor or the audit committee, therefore, bringing disorder to the entire compliance governance. In accordance, an inquiry which may seem to be very obvious begins. “Does the Standing Auditor or the Audit Committee should be the only organization body that needs to receive reporting?” In the western financial institutes, when arranging the compliance organization, reporting to the head directly or to the CRO, CLO, Auditor, Treasurer, security manager, or human resource manager has been an on-going discussion. If the compliance officer does not directly report to the CEO or the Board of Directors and if the related head of each departments must be reported prior to reporting to the CEO, the information will become second tier information. Discussion regarding compliance officer organization and compliance governance is important in creating an environment for effective operation in the perspective of regulation. Organization of compliance officer is the important factor of control circumstance that decides independency and expertise of compliance officer, which leads to a fundamental question: “How should organization be composed and to whom should the compliance officer report to produce the most desirable and effective result?” Compliance Officer appointed by board of directors can be divided into four main division which have registered director or executive directives as the highest ranking position: ① Direct organization of CEO, ② Direct organization of full-time auditor (or audit committee), ③ Direct organization of internal accounting manager, ④ Direct organization of CRO. In this study, 4 different organization structures have been legally and practically evaluated. Pros and cons of each organization structure have been evaluated. Through the evaluation, problems and potential amendment needed to the compliance organization have been stated. In conclusion, rather than creating regulations regarding the compliance organization and compliance governance should be managed by each entity in regards to their distinct characteristics.

內部統制業務 關聯 遵法監視人의 地位

元東郁(Dong-Wook Won) 한국기업법학회 2008 企業法硏究 Vol.22 No.1

A compliance officer was introduced along with the internal control system in accordance with the amendments to the Banking Act and other laws relating to financial services since the financial and currency crisis in Korea. As a result, banks, securities corporates, insurance companies and other financial institutions must stipulate a internal control standard and appoint a compliance officer. A internal control system in Korea is similar to COSO Framework. Generally an internal control is a process to provide resonable assurance regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, the reliability of financial reporting, and compliance with corporate policies and legal rules. An internal control consists of five components, which are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring. The compliance officer is charged with the establishment of compliance system for compliance with corporate laws and legal rules. The compliance officer is elected by the corporate board. In order to be provided for an effective and efficient operation of the compliance program, some of the misunderstanding and confusion on the real function of compliance officer must be removed. It seems that most of the criticisms result from misunderstanding of the function of the compliance officer. It is necessary to make a distinction between the role of audit committee (or auditor) and that of compliance officer.