공공정보 이용의 활성화를 위한 법적 개선 방안

고동원(Ko, Dong-Won),권영준(Kwon, Young-June) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.2

In evaluating the credit of a consumer of financial institutions, credit information or data regarding such an individual comsumer, including his/her creditability, non-defaults in credit transactions, and credit transaction abilities, is used. In particular, it should be noted that “public sector information or data” on an individual consumer is also used for his/her credit score by a credit bureau or an financial institution. “Public sector information or data” is defined as information or data produced or owned by the public sector, including the central or provincial government or public entities. The examples include the records of court decision on insolvency or bankruptcy on an individual and defaults in tax payments (which are called as “negative public information”) as well as the records on electricity payments, telecommunication fee payments, gas fee payments, and social or health insurance premium payments (which are called as “positive public information”). Especially, it is argued that positive public information is very useful in credit-scoring on an individual who does not have sufficient credit history. In this regard, this article intends to review the current regulations relating to re-use of public information by a credit bureau or a public credit registry, and to suggest some recommendations for improvements on efficient re-use of public information from legal perspective in Korea. In Korea, the most important legislation regarding re-use of public information is the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (CIUPA). Other relevant laws include the Individual Information Protection Act, recently enacted and effective from September 30, 2011, the Public Institution Information Disclosure Act, the National Health Insurance Act, the National Pension Fund Act, the Korea Electricity Corporation Act, and the Resident Registration Act. However, the current regulations regarding re-use of public information contain some drawbacks. First, Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the CIUPA allows a credit bureau or a public credit registry to request public sector institutions to provide it with the relevant public information on a specific individual, and then such public institutions must provide the information to the relevant credit bureau or public credit registry, except for special cases; however, because the “special cases” are not so concrete, the relevant public institutions are in fact reluctant to provide such information, which is reducing the effects of this system. Second, provisions for procedure of the request and supply of public information are lacking. Third, Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the CIUPA also allows a credit bureau or a public credit registry to request public institutions to provide the relevant positive public information, including electricity payments and social insurance or health insurance premium payments, even though such provision is prohibited in the relevant laws; however, because the provision of such public information is solely determined by public entities themselves, the system of re-use of positive public information is not well being operated. Thus, this article suggests some improvements as follows: first, the “special cases” should be specified more in detail in order to prevent discretion of the relevant public entities; second, procedures for the request and provision of public information should be prescribed in the CIUPA; third, public institutions’ sole decision power regarding the provision of public information should be abolished. In addition, this article argues that the scope for public information to be re-used should be expanded, including gas fee payments. Finally, this article proposes the enactment of basic law regarding commercial re-use of public sector information for the purpose of more efficient system for re-use of public information, as shown in the cases of the European Union and the United Kingdom.

신용조회회사(CB)의 신용평가모형과 감독 : 주요국과의 비교 분석을 중심으로

강경훈,배영수 한국금융정보학회 2019 금융정보연구 Vol.8 No.2

A credit bureau (CB) is a financial infrastructure company that provides credit score or credit rating. The CB calculates the credit score or credit rating by putting the credit information of individuals or companies collected from various sources into a credit rating model. This paper examines the current status of the credit rating model, which is the core of the credit inquiry service, and the cases of major foreign countries, and compares them. We also investigate how the supervision or regulation of private CBs in major foreign countries is done and look for policy implications. Since the credit rating model of private CBs belongs to business secrets, it is difficult to find cases where direct supervision or disclosure is mandatory. However, various regulations and supervision are being implemented to protect financial consumers after the 2007-2009 global financial crisis. There is also a need for efforts to address rating shopping or rating inflation in relation to corporate credit ratings. 신용조회회사(Credit Bureau: CB)는 신용평점 또는 신용등급에 대한 조회 서비스를 제공하는 금융인프라기업이다. 신용조회회사는 여러 원천에서 수집한 개인 또는 기업의 신용정보를 신용평가모형에 투입함으로써신용 평점 또는 등급을 계산한다. 이 논문은 신용조회 서비스의 핵심이라고 할 수 있는 신용평가모형에 대하여국내 현황 및 해외 주요국 사례를 조사하고 비교 분석한다. 또한 해외 주요국에서 신용조회회사들의 주요활동에 대한 감독 또는 규제가 어떻게 이루어지는지 살펴보고 정책적 시사점을 모색한다. 민간 CB사의 신용평가모형은 영업비밀에 속하기 때문에 직접적인 감독이나 공개를 의무화하는 사례를 찾기 어려우나 2007-2009 글로벌 금융위기 이후 금융소비자 보호 차원에서 다양한 규제 및 감독이 추진되고 있다. 또한 CB의 기업신용평가와관련하여 등급쇼핑이나 등급인플레이션 문제를 해소하기 위한 노력이 필요하다.

새로운 신용정보 공유체계 모델로서의 한국 사례 분석

강경훈 ( Kyeong-hoon Kang ) 한국금융정보학회 2017 금융정보연구 Vol.6 No.1

신용정보 공유체계는 신용정보가 생산·유통·활용되는 시스템으로서 경제성장을 촉진하는 주요한 금융 통로의 하나이다. 신용정보 공유체계의 핵심은 신용정보의 공유 업무를 담당하는 기관인 신용정보집중기관(credit registry, CR)과 신용정보조회업자(credit bureau, CB)인데 이들과 관련한 세계 각국의 사례를 살펴보면 각국의 금융산업, 제도, 사회, 문화 등의 차이에 따라 다양한 모델이 공존한다. 한국의 경우 CR과 CB가 공존하고 있으며 이들 사이에 신용정보가 공유되는 독특한 시스템을 가지고 있다. 한국의 모델은 CB가 자생적으로 발전하는 데 시간이 오래 걸릴 수 있으므로 개도국에서 유력한 고려 대상이 될 수 있다. 또한 CR의 정보가 CB에 제공되는 경우 CB시장 및 나아가 대출시장의 진입장벽이 낮아지는 경쟁정책적 효과도 있다. 이 연구는 한국의 신용정보 공유체계 발전 사례를 분석하는 한편 향후 발전 방향을 제시한다. Credit information sharing system is the set of laws and institutions that enables efficient and effective access to credit information of clients of financial institutions. Credit registries (CR) and credit bureaus (CB) are the main players of the credit information systems. They enable financial institutions to access to complete, accurate, and reliable information on potential borrowers, contributing to the growth of credit-based economy. Countries over the world have various models for the credit information sharing system, and there is no one correct answer. Korea started with only a CR, but today it has both a CR and two CBs. Since it can take a very long time for CBs to emerge in the market, the Korean experience of establishing CR and allowing information sharing between the CR and CBs can be a good example for developing countries. Another merit of the Korean credit information system is that it guarantees fair competition among private information providers. This paper examines the historical development of the Korean credit information system and suggests future policy tasks.

신용정보의 체계와 정책 이슈

황인덕 ( In Deok Hwang ) 한국금융정보학회 2013 금융정보연구 Vol.2 No.2

우리나라의 신용정보 이용 및 보호 체계는 1995년 1월 5일 신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률이 제정되어 법적 기반을 확보하였고, 그동안 신용정보업의 육성, 신용정보의 효율적 이용 및 체계적 관리, 신용정보 주체의 보호, 신용질서의 확립 등에 기여해 왔으나, 신용정보의 이용 및 제공 등에 엄격한 규제를 적용하고 있어 개선 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 또한, 공공정보 집중 관련 규정에도 불구하고 공공기관이 공공정보의 제공에 소극적이며, 대부업 정보도 금융정보로서 금융시장의 효율성 관점에서 공유정보에 포함시키는 것이 타당할 것이나, 현재 공유가 이루어지지 않고 있다. 신용평가모형의 정확도를 제고하고 금융소외자의 금융시장 접근성을 높이기 위해서는 공공정보 및 대부업 정보의 실질적인 공유가 필요하다. 신용평가업이 신용정보법에서 자본시장법으로 이관되면서 현재 고유업무로 수행중인 신용공여 평가 등의 업무가 부수업무로 분류되는 등 규제상충 문제에 대한 입법적 보완이 필요하다. 또한 신용평가 수익모델의 변경이나 복수평가의 폐지여부에 대해서는 이해상충의 회피를 통한 정확한 신용평가정보의 생산과 투자자 보호라는 관점에서 보다 충분한 연구와 검토가 필요하다. 기업신용정보 인프라는 재무정보의 양과 질이 절대적으로 부족하여 상대적으로 초보단계에 머물러 있으므로 향후 기업정보 유통 활성화를 통한 서비스 고도화와 이를 위한 적극적인 투자가 필요하다. Systems on use and protection of credit information in Korea were introduced into legislation in January 5, 1995 in parallel with enactment of an act on use and protection of credit information. The systems have contributed to nurturing of credit information business, efficient use and systemic control of credit information, protection of the information owner, and enforcement of credit-related rules and regulations. However, issues have been raised to reform the systems as they apply very strict restrictions over use and provision of credit information. In addition, in spite of the regulation on concentration of public information, public agencies are passively providing public information. Moreover, even though it is plausible to share information about consumer loan finance companies as financial information from a perspective of an efficient financial market, it is not shared as of current. In order to enhance accuracy of credit rating model and improve access of those who are financially excluded to financial market, public information and information about consumer loan finance business shall be shared in practice. Additional legal supplementation is necessary in order to address the conflict of regulations as credit rating business is now regulated under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act instead of Use and Protection of Credit Information Act. For example, the assessment of credit exposure which is currently classified as core activity will be categorized as supplementary activity. In addition, change of credit rating business model or abolition of multiple rating system require thorough research and review for production of accurate credit rating information and protection of investors. Infrastructure regarding credit information of companies is relatively in its elementary stages since it lacks both quality and quantity of financial information. Against this backdrop, service must be advanced by facilitating distribution of information about companies, and aggressive investment is also necessary to this end.

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.

금융부문의 발전과 법·제도의 역할: 주요 선진국들의 신용정보공유제도 분석을 중심으로

박찬일,남수종 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 2009 국제지역연구 Vol.13 No.3

Credit reporting agencies can be classified into two types. One is credit bureau(CB), which is well developed in the Anglo-Saxon countries. The other is public credit registry(PCR), which has been established in most countries on the Continent of Europe. The existing literature stresses legal origins and the level of income as determinants of the structure of credit information sharing system. This study, however, places special emphasis on the significant role of incentive problems concerning voluntary information sharing, which can be related to economic development process, as an additional determinant. The fact that industrialization in the U.K. and the U.S. resulted from private efforts in which the state did not participate has been instrumental in the evolution of their market-oriented financial system. CB, which is an institutional arrangement for voluntary exchange of credit information, is an invention of the market-oriented system suited to the peculiar needs of American society, where creditors needed to obtain information on individuals whose business experiences frequently were dispersed over a wide territory. In contrast, the process of industrialization on the Continent of Europe has been actively state-assisted and sometimes state-engendered. It was assisted by specific measures in the finance area, such as the creation of special-purpose banks designed to provide finance for industry. In other words, the role of supply-leading finance was emphasized in the banking sector to catch up the economic power as backward economies relative to the Anglo-Saxon countries. In this environment, it is difficult that financial institutions have enough incentives for voluntary exchange of information. That is why PCR, which is a direct intervention of government in the credit market, is so popular as credit reporting agencies in most countries on the Continent of Europe. 금융부문의 질적 발전을 결정짓는 대표적인 요인으로는 법적 제도, 소득수준 그리고 경제개발 초기 금융부분에서 정부 역할의 강도 등을 꼽을 수 있다. 이러한 맥락에서 이들 요인들이 금융하부구조에 속하는 신용정보공유제도의 발전에도 매우 중요한 요소라고 할 수 있다. 최근의 연구들은 법적 제도와 소득수준이 신용정보공유제도의 초기 형성과정에 결정적인 영향을 미쳤다고 실증적으로 밝히고 있다. 주요 선진국들의 경험을 바탕으로 본 연구는 신용정보공유시스템의 발달과정에서 경제개발 초기 금융부문에서의 정부 역할의 강도 역시 중요한 결정요인인 것으로 파악하고 있다. 미국, 영국 및 캐나다 등 앵글로 색슨(Anglo-Saxon) 국가들의 산업화 과정은 경제개발 초기단계부터 민간주도로 자생적으로 진행되었기에 금융부문에서의 정부의 역할이 상대적으로 약했다. 신용정보공유시스템의 형성 및 발달과정도 이러한 테두리 안에서 설명될 수 있다. 이에 반해 선진국 중에서도 후발산업국가에 속하는 유럽대륙국가들은 경제개발 초기단계에서 상대적으로 강력한 정부개입이 존재하였다. 금융시장에서의 강력한 정부개입은 경쟁적 시장 환경과 동떨어져 있으며 자발적인 정보공유의 인센티브를 감소시킨다. 정책당국의 지시에 의한 신용배분이 상당한 비중을 차지하는 상황에서 수익성 창출 및 신용정보 생산에 대한 금융기관의 인센티브는 약화되기 때문이다. 이런 환경에서는 기본적으로 CB 시장의 자생적 발전이 불가능하다. 차라리 신용시장에서의 정부개입의 한 형태인 PCR 설립이 훨씬 더 저렴한 사회적 비용을 요구한다. 그리고 PCR의 설립을 통해 부족한 채권자(금융기관)의 권리를 보완해 줄 수 있다. 비록 유럽대륙 국가들의 신용정보제공기관은 PCR 중심으로 형성되어 발전해 왔지만 최근에 들어 CB시장도 발달하기 시작하고 있다. PCR과 CB가 신용정보공유의 두 축을 담당하면서 이 둘은 이제 보완관계로 발전하는 경향이 있다. 따라서 주요 선진국들의 경험을 분석한 본 논문은 동북아시아 국가들의 건전한 금융체제의 하부구조 구축에 대해 중요한 시사점을 제공한다.

심포지엄: 자본시장법 개정의 주요 과제 : 자본시장법의 개정과 신용평가 관련 법체계의 정비

황창선 ( Chang Sun Hwang ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2011 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구 Vol.3 No.1

Credit rating in Korea was not born out of need among capital market participants. Instead, it was initially introduced and developed as a part of government`s policy measures. Korea`s credit rating agencies (CRAs) were burdened with more strict duties and obligations than those CRAs in other countries even from the early days as the development of the industry was a government-led mission. They also had to operate under tighter regulations. Before engaging in the overhaul of the legal framework of the industry in line with global community`s efforts to hold CRAs more accountable for their actions, a thorough and in-depth review on the current market conditions and regulations in place should take precedence. This will lay the foundation for establishing the appropriate legal framework for the Korean capital markets which will enhance the role of a credit rating agency as a provider of unbiased and professional opinion and promote the development of overall capital markets. The credit rating industry in Korea is governed by the Use and Protection o fCredit Information Act, which regulates market entry and operations, and the Capital Market Consolidation Act, which oversees the use of credit ratings. The Credit Information Act of 2009 was intended to regulate the operations of CRAs as well as reinforce the ir roles in the capital market. However, the Act is evaluated to be partially successful with supervising their operations, not with enhancing their roles, because of the existence of two different Acts governing the industry. The credit rating regulations whose fundamental purpose is the protection of investors do not agree with the Credit Information Act which promotes the protection of credit information of individuals and corporations. As the credit rating constitutes infrastructure critical to the capital markets, it is essential to provide the legal framework which will facilitate the development of both credit rating industry and capital markets. This also lives up to the Capital Market Consolidation Act whose primary purpose is to protect investors. Potential amendments include adding credit rating definitions, requiring a credit rating for underwriting and brokerage of securities, resolving the disclosure issue regarding ABCP and launching fund credit rating. These amendments will contribute to enhancing the role of CRAs in protecting investors and assisting investors make a more informed investment decision during their investment process.

서민의 금융접근과 상호금융의 관계금융 활성화

이종욱 서울여자대학교 사회과학연구소 2015 사회과학논총 Vol.22 No.-

서민들은 기본적으로 소득 및 부도 낮고 현금흐름도 불안정하여, 과거 및 현재 정량적인 재무정보를 기반으로 평가하는 개인신용 평가에서 낮은 등급을 받게 되어 금융기관에서 대출을 받기도 어렵고, 금융접근이 되더라도 높은 대출이자를 지불해야 한다. 신용등급이 낮은 서민들이 자주 이용하는 상호금융기관은 금융감독기관에 의해 CAMEL로 평가 받고 있어서, 서민들을 위한 금융상품을 출시하는 것이 불가능하다. 서민들의 대부업체 이용을 줄여 고금리 이자의 부담을 경감해 주려면, 금융정책 당국은 서민들이 아닌 신용불량자들을 위한 다양한 정책금융 상품을 출시하는 것과 병행하여, 상호금융이 그 지역 서민들에게 맞는 관계형 금융상품을 출시할 수 있는 여지를 열어 주어야 한다. 서민들이 신용불량자가 되지 않고 금융기관을 활용하여 스스로 신용등급을 관리할 수 있는 기회가 만들어질 수 있다. 1960년대 마을금고와 신협이 지역에서 관계금융을 제공하였으므로, 금융정책 및 감독 당국은 자산건전성분류 기준 그리고 CAMEL 등급 평가를 지역밀착형 금융기관이 소액대출에서는 관계금융이 활성화될 수 있도록 맞도록 조정해야 한다. Since financial institutions have been evaluated by CAMEL based on past and present financial information, the low income classes who get low income, real net wealth and unstable cash flow, get low credit rating at Credit Bureau as well as financial institutions. They have some difficulties in making a loan and pay high interest for even getting the loan. Credit cooperatives and small financial institutions to make a loan to the humble classes have been evaluated by CAMEL and can’t provide financial services to consider their situations. To get small loan, the low income classes who are not accessible to Credit cooperatives and small financial institutions, visit a usurer to demand so high interest. Korean government has provided financial products-for example, smile microcredit, national happy fund, new hope spore loan, sunshine loan-for only delinquent borrower, but they are not enough to recover credit rating for about 3.2 million credit defaulters in Korea and to reduce the number of delinquents. To reduce the number of people who use credit loan from a usurer, financial policy and supervisory authorities have to provide opportunities for credit cooperatives attached to the community to make a loan by relational banking. The relational banking loan which are based on borrower’s honesty, ethical reputation, family tradition, etc. as well as financial status, can not be evaluated by the criteria of CAMEL. Korea has some experiences of relational banking loan in the 1960s by Maeul Cooperative which has been developed into Community Credit Cooperative. To promote relational banking small loan by credit cooperatives, financial policy and supervisory authorities have to attempt to restructure the classification of asset quality and the evaluation practices of financial institutions by CAMEL, to reflect the economic activities and situations of both low income classes and credit defaulters. This restructuring is big works which need wide range of joint researches by scholars, credit bureau professionals, credit cooperative employers, and then the revision of law as well as supervisory guidelines.

「신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률」 개정안에 대한 검토

노태석 은행법학회 2014 은행법연구 Vol.7 No.1

Responding to the financial incident of customers' credit information leakage from major three credit card companies in early 2014, several legislative bills on the revision of the Credit Information Law were submitted to the National Assembly and through discussions, the consolidated version was finalized by the relevant committee of the National Assembly and passed by the National Assembly' meetings. Major amendments seek to reinforce the protection of the credit information, with the strengthening of preemptive prevention actions such as reinforcement of customer's consent procedure and post sanctions such as imposition of punitive fines. In particular, it is noteworthy that such amendments, among others, introduced newly punitive damage compensation scheme as a relief for a damage due to leakage of credit information. However, some issues need to be further discussed for improvements. Such issues include the validity of restrictions on the business of credit bureau, the plan to establish a separate public organization for reorganization of a concentrated credit information management system, the plan to reinforce a customer's rights to decide his/her own information by an owner of credit information in the stage of credit information collection, and the introduction of provisions to estimate damage amounts to effectively guarantee a punitive damage compensation system. 그 동안 빈번한 개인정보 유출사건이 있었으나, 2014년 1월 발생한 카드 3사의 개인정보 대량유출사건은 거의 모든 국민의 개인정보가 유출된 경우여서 국민들에게 상당한 충격을 안겨주었다. 금번 사건을 계기로 정보보호 강화를 위한 각종 법률안이 국회에 제출되었고, 그 중 일부는 국회의 의결을 얻어 개정되기도 하였으나, 가장 중요한 법안인 신용정보법 개정 법률안은 개정되지 못하고, 추후 논의를 계속하기로 하였다. 카드 3사의 정보유출사건을 계기로 신용정보법 개정안에 대한 다수의 법률안이 국회에 제출되었고, 국회 정무위원회에서는 개정 법률안들에 대한 검토를 거쳐 최종적으로 정무위원회 대안으로 위원회안을 마련하였다. 동 위원회안은 신용정보 보호를 위해 동의절차 강화 등의 사전적 예방조치와 함께 징벌적 과징금 등의 사후적 제재수단 도입하였으며, 신용정보 유출에 따른 피해구제 수단으로 징벌적 손해배상제도를 도입함으로써 상당히 진일보한 입법이라고 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 위원회안의 일부 규정에 대해서는 추가적인 논의를 거쳐 보완이 이루어져야 할 것으로 판단된다. 위원회안 중 추가적인 검토가 필요한 부분으로는 신용조회회사의 업무 규제 타당성, 신용정보 집중관리체계 개편을 위한 별도의 공적 기구 설립 방안, 신용정보 수집단계에서의 신용정보주체의 자기정보결정권 강화 방안, 징벌적 손해배상제도의 실효적 보장을 위한 손해액 추정 규정 등의 도입에 대한 추가적인 논의가 있어야 할 것으로 판단된다.

일반논문 : 신용정보의 집중과 법적 문제

오길영 ( Kil Young Oh ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2014 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.28

This paper aims at pointing out several problems on the current legislative system of credit registry system. The most problematic is conflict of relevant regulations, which are ‘Use and Protection of Credit Information Act’ and ‘Personal Information Protection Act’. For this reason, there is no appropriate regulation but the importance of credit information protection is increasing. This is the first part of this article. The Second part of this article is allotted to analyzing the current management system about personal credit information. Here, I consider the current credit registry organization, that type of the United States is complicated but not effective, and criticize the controversial issues related to confused management structure of credit information and excessive data collection. In the last part of this article, I tried to suggest two unsolved doubts about deficiency of current legislation and noticeable analysis report, that bring need of rethinking about our credit regulation structure. With regard to these issues, I want to emphasize that confused credit legislation produces excessive data collection and immoral organization.