이자제한법제의 현황과 과제 : 일본법제와의 비교

노종천(Roh Jong-Chun) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學論叢 Vol.25 No.-

우리나라의 이자제한 법제는 연혁적으로 고유한 우리의 법제나 선진적 입법례를 포기하고 일본의 이자제한법제를 계수하였다. 따라서 우리나라와 일본은 이자제한법제에서 각국의 상황에 따른 차이점을 지니고 있지만, 상당한 공통점을 가지고 있다. 이 논문은 이에 착안하여 우리의 이자제한법제와 일본의 이자제한법제를 검토하여, 문제점을 파악하고 그에 관한 법정책적 해결방안을 제시하였다. 이 연구에서 발견한 내용은 첫째, 양국의 공통된 문제는 고금리에 의한 서민들의 금융이용에서의 어려움과 사회적 문제이다. 둘째는 일본은 사회적 합의를 바탕으로 이자제한법제를 정비하여 2010년부터 고금리의 문제를 상당부분 해결하였다는 것이다. 셋째 우리의 이자제한법제는 아직 후진적 법제도에 머물고 있어 고금리에 의한 사회적 폐해가 현존하고 있다. 이 연구에서는 우리의 이자제한법제의 정비방안을 제시하여 우리사회의 고금리의 폐해를 제거하고, 서민들이 시장금리에 의한 금융이용의 건전성을 확보함으로서 법적 정의를 실현하자는 주장을 하였다. 즉 이자제한법제의 법정책적 방향론을 제시하였다. Our country and Japan have similar legal system about the interest limit. The limit by special law which is not the civil affairs principle of law is same, and the system of the Interest Limitation Act which is applied to general and Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users which is applied to the specific industry is such. Such appearance is because the legislation of my country to exclude received the legislation of Japan. Consequently, We had almost similar problem with Japan about the problem of the interest limit. Japan solved a suitableness part problem by the revision law from 2006. This can say that the thing to hint is big at our interest limit legislation. Japan's regulation method and penal provisions is different from the Japan Interest Limitation Act and the Act Regulating the Receipt of Contributions, Receipt of Deposits and Interest Rates regulation rate of interest. Japan abolished "Grey Zone Interest" so called which it came into being for such reason. Namely, the criteria of the Act Regulating the Receipt of Contributions, Receipt of Deposits and Interest Rates of the detective punishment is to lower the limit rate of interest to become to a limit rate of interest level of the Japan Interest Limitation Act. The duality consists of Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users which the Credit Business does to be registered to limit the interest rate in the money difference contract, and the Interest Limitation Act. which the interest limit legislation of our country limits the interest rate of the sign of the money difference contract in person. Interest Limitation Act limit rate of interest an existing 30% for a year, Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users limit rate of interest an existing 44% for a year. With this thing which describes in the text, The law is guaranteing the high interest about the loaning business. But any more, A duality law and order which guarantees the high interest about the loaning business does not have the adequacy. Moreover, By compare at the legislation case, the high limit rate of interest by the Interest Limitation Act corresponds to the high interest. This paper put the law in good order and presented the direction of the interest limit legislation. We lower to the level for the interest rate of the Interest Limitation Act to be proper, Eliminate a Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users limit rate of interest regulation. We are the thing to take the order of the Interest Limitation Act so that we are identical.

간주이자 규제에 관한 비교법적 연구

김대규 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2023 성균관법학 Vol.35 No.2

This study aims to examine the problems of the deemed interest regulation stipulated in Article 8 (2) of the 「Act On Registration Of Credit Business And Protection Of Finance Users(Credit Business Act as follows)」. In Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Credit Business Act, the following transaction costs are deemed as interest. “In determining the interest rate prescribed in paragraph (1), all payments made to a credit service provider in connection with a loan, in whatsoever name it is referred to, such as a recompense, a rebate, a fee, a deductible amount, overdue interests, or a substitute payment, shall be deemed interest: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to expenses specified by Presidential Decree as those incidental to the conclusion of the relevant transaction and repayment.” The Credit Business Act deem “everything received by a lender regardless of its name” as interest. This comprehensive definition of interest allows the category of interest to be expanded indefinitely regardless of the conceptual characteristics of interest. As a result, arbitrary supervision and judicial judgment on whether the highest interest rate is violated are possible. Logically it makes conflict with the 'principle of prohibition of excess' under the constitution. Emerging financial operations based on fees, such as 'P2P loans' and 'Transaction Banking', are also bound to be restricted by the highest interest rate regulations. Therefore this study analyze the conceptual problems implied by 'deemed interest', not interest in a unique sense under the Credit Business Act. Subsequently, other countries that implement the legal interest rate cap under the Credit Business Act would be examined how to set the scope of their application by comparing them with the deemed interest regulations under the Korean Credit Business Act. Finally, it would be presented ideas to solve problems arising from the current deemed interest regulations. 간주이자’란 고유한 의미의 이자가 아닌데 법률상 ‘이자로 간주하는 것’을 가리킨다. 예컨대 감정평가 등 거래체결 비용부터 중도해지 수수료 등이 그렇다. 그러나 대부업법은 간주이자의 범위에 대해 제한을 두지 않는다. 이자제한법은 성질상 채권자가 부담해야 할 것으로 제한하지만 명료하지 않다. 무한 확장할 수 있는 ‘간주이자’는 법률상 최고이자율을 왜곡하는 ‘부(負)의 효과’를 초래한다. 이러한 간주이자 규정은 대부업법과 이자제한법상 최고이자율 차이에 비롯한 ‘특례금리효과’를 전제한다. 왜냐하면 여신을 전문으로 하는 사업자가 간주이자 규제로 늘어나는 거래비용을 특례금리로 상쇄할 수 있기 때문이다. 그런데 2018년 대부업법과 이자제한법상 최고이자율이 같아졌다. 그런데도 간주이자 규제는 그대로 남아 사실상 최고이자율 일원화를 왜곡하며 ‘부(負)의 효과’를 강화한다. 나아가 물가와 시장금리가 동시에 상승하는 시기에는 거래비용과 제반 수수료가 이자율 산정을 위한 이자 총액에서 차지하는 간주이자 총액 비중이 더 높아질 수밖에 없다. 결과적으로 최고이자율 규제하에서 간주이자 규제는 비용을 견디지 못한 사업자가 제도권 시장에서 철수하고 이용자는 사금융시장에 의존하는 규제의 역설을 발생시키는 제도적 요인으로 기능한다. 이는 ‘사금융 양성화’라는 대부업법의 입법 목적에 반한다. 이에 본 연구는 간주이자의 문제점을 살피고 우리 법제와 비교 할 수 있는 일본이나 싱가포르에서 이자로 간주하는 범주와 비교하여 개선점을 도출하고자 한다.

사모투자전문회사의 지분 개념에 대한 법적 고찰

김도경(Kim, Do Kyung) 한국증권법학회 2011 증권법연구 Vol.12 No.2

Private equity fund ("PEF") under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act ("FSCMA") is the company in the form of limited partnership(In Korean, hapjahoysa) under the Commercial Act. Neither the current provisions with respect to PEF under the FSCMA, nor the Commercial Act are sufficient to regulate the partnership interest of PEF. Furthermore, it is hard to find the articles about the partnership interest of PEF. However, in line with the increase of the PEF, it is expected that the number of the transactions related to the partnership interest of PEF will subsequently increase. In this article, on the assumption that the legal nature of the partnership interest of PEF is the status of partner, the partnership interest of PEF is divided into the "Commitment Interest", "Utilized Commitment Interest", and the "Unutilized Commitment Interest." In addition, the Utilized Commitment Interest may be varied by the purpose of capital call in accordance with the partnership agreement, and the Unutilized Commitment Interest can be differed by whether there was a capital call or not. Based on this analysis, this article look through the issues in respect of the transfer of various kinds of Interests. Also, this article argues that the same entity is able to have the partnership interest of the general partner and that of the limited partnership simultaneously due to the different kinds of each of its legal nature. Besides, current FSCMA cannot afford the partnership interest of the general partner and unutilized commitment interest of the limited partner into the concept of the "Securities". It only includes the utilized commitment interest of the limited partner. Therefore, this article researched whether there are any necessities to adopt the separate concept of the transferable partnership interest under the FSCMA. Based on the previous analysis, this article examined the diverse legal issues on the verge of the bankruptcy of the partner. First, in case of the limited partner"s bankruptcy, the creditors of the PEF should be entitled to participate the bankruptcy procedure of such limited partner in so far such limited partner has any unutilized commitment interest. Unless otherwise the partnership agreement sets out, the rationale of the executory contract under the Debtors Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (the "DRBA") could be applied to the general partner"s partnership interest in its entirety, on the other hand the same will be applied to the limited partner with respect only to the Unutilized Commitment Interest. Moreover, this article discusses about the effectiveness of the ipso facto clause under the partnership agreement. Finally, this article opines that neither the provision of the committed equity, nor the set-off between the obligation of dividend distribution and the right of capital call is subject to the avoidance under DRBA.

민법에 있어서 책임제한: 서론적 고찰

이은영(Lee, Eun-Young) 한국재산법학회 2017 재산법연구 Vol.33 No.4

민법은 일정한 행위 또는 사건으로 인한 책임을 누구에게 부담시킬 것인지, 또 채무자 내지 채권자에게 부담시키기 곤란한 경우에 누구에게 이를 부담시킬 것인가에 대해 끊임 없이 고민을 해왔다. 특히 책임법은 모든 법질서와 경제질서의 본질적인 구성요소로서 사익들 사이의 충돌, 또는 사익과 공익의 충돌을 탁월한 방식으로 조정하는 기능을 수행해 왔다. 이러한 책임제한제도는 그 제도적인 필요성에도 불구하고, 채무자의 책임을 제한함으 로써 결과적으로 채권자에게 책임을 전가함에 따라 헌법상 보장되는 재산권이 침해되는 결과에 이르게 된다는 점에서, 또 정의의 이념을 위하여 법적 안정성을 침해한다는 점에서 헌법적인 문제와 법철학적인 문제를 동시에 야기한다. 과연 이러한 민법상 책임제한제도는 정당화될 수 있는가? 채무자의 책임을 제한하는 데에는 반드시 그것의 법적 정당성이 뒷받침되어야 한다는 것이고, 책임제한의 법적 정당 성이 인정된다 하더라도 그 적용과 범위에 있어서는 어느 정도 예측가능성이 확보되어야 한다. 한정승인이나 파산제도와 같은 개별제도와 같이 애초부터 책임이 제한되는 경우는 물론이고 책임이 성립된 이후 이를 조정하거나 제한하는 경우도 책임제한은 법질서의 일반원칙과 헌법적 가치질서를 벗어나서는 안 된다. 이 논문은 우리나라 민법에 있어서 책임제한 제도를 살펴보고 그 의의를 개괄적으로 검토한다. 그리고 개별적 책임제한제도 및일반적 책임제한제도와 헌법과의 상관관계에 대해 검토한다. On whom the liability for a certain action or case shall be imposed, and in the case that such liability cannot be imposed on a debtor or a creditor, on whom it shall be imposed have long been a concern for the Civil Act. In particular, the liability acts are the essentials of the legal and economic orders and serve as a excellent mediator of conflicts between private interests or between private interest and public interest. Despite the institutional necessity, the liability limitation system simultaneously causes both constitutional and legal-philosophical problems in that the limitation on debtors’ liability results in the liability shift to creditors and thus the property rights guaranteed in the Constitution may be infringed, and that the legal stability may be infringed for the sake of the ideology of justice. Then, can this liability limitation system under the Civil Act be justified? The limitation on debtors’ liability must be based on its legal legitimacy. Even if the legal legitimacy of the liability limitation is acknowledged, the predictability of the application and scope of such limitation has to be secured to a certain degree. Whether the case that the liability is originally limited as in individual systems such as bankruptcy and limited approval, or the case that the liability is adjusted or limited after its establishment, the limitation on liability must not go beyond the constitutional value order as well as the general principles of the legal order. The paper study examines the liability limitation system under the Civil Act of Korea and gives a general discussion on its implications. The correlation between individual liability limitation system and the Constitution is investigated.

신탁법의 개정방향 -법무부 2009년 신탁법 전면개정안을 중심으로 -

안성포 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.1

The Korean business trust has been used mostly in banks in the form of money trust. The government has been regulating trust businesses in order to protect the rights of the beneficiary. However, recently the deregulation, asset-backed securitization act, collective investment act and real estate investment act in the trust businesses are using trust as a mean for their own advantage. The use of trust is variable. Trusts can be created during a person’s life, usually through a trust instrument, or after a person’s death through a will. As a trust can become more of a flexible instrument to accommodate a variety of purposes, it will be used with even greater frequency compared to other types of structured finance devices. The Trust Act has been in force for more than 4 decades in its original form. Its model is the Japanese Trust Act, which was made in 1922 based on the Indian Trust Act of 1882 and California Civil Code of 1872. Therefore, the Korean Trust Act has been criticized as outdated and ineffective to deal with modern economic environment. In 2009 Ministry of Justice has been working on the revision of the Korean Trust Act. This article is written based on the draft prepared by the Trust Act Reform Committee of the Ministry of Justice. Chapter I of this article explains the actual condition of trust business in Korea and the necessity for the Trust Act reformation. In chapter Ⅱ this article presents the basic direction for the revision of the Trust Act. It is to create a comprehensive Trust Act that includes civil trust and business trust, and possibly a default rule. Chapter III introduces a number of important revisions including the following:(i) Enlargement of the autonomy of related Parties and General Provisions (ii) Maintenance of regulations regarding the trust property (iii) Reality of the duties and rights of the trustee (iv) Vitalization and modernization of the beneficiary's interests (v) Refine and diversify regulations regarding the modification and the termination of the trust, the introduction of division and merger of trusts (vi) Introduction of the Limited Liability Trusts etc. The article ends by describing the effect of the revisions made for trust institutions.

개정 대부업법의 주요내용과 개선과제

손경애 한국법제연구원 2017 법제연구 Vol.- No.52

Previously the local government was in charge of management and supervision over credit service provider. However, in order to manage and supervise credit business more systematically, the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter the “Credit Business Act”) has been amended to the effect that credit service provider having a nationwide business network or a large-scale assets shall be put under the supervision of the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service. Further, since the clause of maximum interest rate under the Credit Business Act has been expired, the Credit Business Act has been amended on March 3, 2016 to the effect that the maximum interest rate is adjusted down to 27.9%. The Credit Business Act amended in two times recently was intended to reinforce the level of protection for credit service users by introducing deposit system of business bond and by regulating TV advertisement time zone, etc. and to enhance the efficiency of supervision over credit business by dualizing supervisory system over credit business and by imposing similar level of regulations with other credit institutions onto credit service providers who are required to register to the Financial Services Commission. However, this might bring legal controversy in connection with that it causes regulatory arbitrage between two different credit service providers which are under control of different supervisory agencies and it unreasonably discriminates against credit service providers who are required to register to the Financial Services Commission and against other credit financial institutions carrying similar credit business activities. Moreover, there are several issues to be solved, such as that the current Act not only excessively restricts transfer of credit claim and does not provide proper regulations on new type of credit business such as peer-to-peer lending, but also interest rate provisions are not in line with legal system, etc. In order to solve these issues, it is advisable that the supervisory system over credit business should be unified into the Financial Services Commission and the levels of restriction should be equal by integrating with other financial business institutions carrying similar credit business activities into one legal system. Furthermore, restrictions on transfer of credit claim should be reasonably improved and a proper regulatory system for new credit business should be introduced to the Credit Business Act. In addition, it is viewed that, from the perspective of legal system, the regulation of the Credit Business Act on the maximum interest rate which is operated as sunsetting regulation should be abolished and the restrictions on interest rates should be unified into the Interest Limitation Act. 종전에는 대부업자에 대한 관리·감독을 지방자치단체가 담당하였으나, 대부업을 보다 체계적으로 관리·감독하기 위해 전국 단위의 영업망을 갖추거나 자산 규모가 큰 대형 대부업자에 대하여는 금융위원회와 금융감독원의 감독을 받도록 하는 내용으로「대부업 등의 등록 및 금융이용자보호에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘대부업법’이라 한다)이 개정되었다. 또한 대부업법상 법정 최고이자율 규정이 실효됨에 따라 2016. 3. 3. 최고금리를 27.9%로 하향 조정하는 내용으로 대부업법이 개정된 바 있다. 최근 두 차례 걸쳐 개정된 대부업법은 보증금 예탁제도 도입 및 TV 광고 시간대 규제 등 대부 이용자 보호 수준을 강화하고, 대부업 감독체계를 이원화하여 금융위원회 등록 대상인 대부업자에게는 다른 여신금융기관과 유사한 수준의 규제를 가함으로써 대부업 감독의 효율성을 높이려 하였다. 그러나 감독기관이 다른 두 대부업자 간에 규제 차이를 발생하게하고, 금융위원회 등록 대상인 대부업자 및 이와 유사한 업태를 보이는 여신금융기관을 불합리하게 차별하고 있는 점에 대해서는 법적 논란이 제기될 수 있다. 또한 대부채권의 양도에 대한 규제가 과도하고 P2P대출과 같은 새로운 형태의 대부업에 대한 적절한 규제를 아직 반영하지 못하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 이자율 규정도 법체계에 맞지 않는 등 여러 가지개선해야 할 과제들이 남아 있다. 이러한 문제점을 해결하기 위해서는 대부업 감독체계를 금융위원회로 일원화하고, 대부업과 유사한 여신업무를 영위하는 금융기관을 단일 법체계로 통합하여 규제 수준을 균등하게 하는 것이 바람직하다. 또한 대부채권의 양도에 관한 규제를 합리적으로 개선하고 신종 대부업에 대한 규제체계를 대부업법에 마련해야 한다. 뿐만 아니라 일몰제로 운용되는 대부업법상 최고이자율 규정을 삭제하고 이자율 규제를 이자제한법으로 일원화하는 것이 법체계상 타당하다고 본다.

할부거래법 시행령 개정안에 대한 연구

고형석 법무부 2021 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.96

The Installment Transaction Act does not apply to a travel contract even if a travel contract is concluded in a prepaid installment transaction method. However, consumer damage related to cruise travel contracts is occurring, and it is highly likely to occur in the future. In addition, the Installment Transactions Act restricts the maximum installment fee rate to prevent consumer damage due to excessive installment fee rates, but it is linked to the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. But despite the reduction in the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, the maximum installment fee rate was not lowered. Therefore, the amendment to the Enforcement Decree, which mainly focuses on expanding the category of prepaid installment transactions and lowering the maximum installment fee rate, can be evaluated as appropriate, although it may be late. However, the amendment to the enforcement ordinance only considered the need for revision, and it needs to be improved in that it did not take into account other factors in determining the maximum installment fee rate, including additional problems that may arise. First, the travel industry and the family ritual business are added to the category of prepaid installment transactions. However, the Installment Transactions Act regulates specific requirements and delegates them to the enforcement ordinance, and one of the requirements is the occurrence of consumer damage equivalent to that of the funeral service. Therefore, in order to add the travel and family ritual business to the prepaid installment transaction business, it is necessary to present data on the current status of consumer damage in this field. In addition, if this is added, private businesses and small businesses can no longer operate businesses in this field because they do not meet the requirements of the company and capital. Therefore, it is desirable to add it as a prepaid installment transaction business only for the cruise travel business and the family ritual business that prove consumer damage. Second, the maximum installment fee rate is set at 20% per year, the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, but it is not suitable considering that the delayed compensation that consumers can claim is 15% per year. In addition, there is a gap between the installment fee rate and the delinquency fee rate. Therefore, this should be considered in determining the maximum installment fee rate. Specifically, the maximum installment fee rate should be set at 12% per year, and the overdue interest rate should be set at 15% per year to match the delayed compensation rate that consumers can claim. 할부거래법상 선불식 할부거래업은 상조업으로 한정되어 있기 때문에 선불식 할부거래방식으로 여행계약 등을 체결하더라도 그 계약에 대해서는 할부거래법이 적용되지 않는다. 그러나 크루즈여행계약에서 소비자피해가 발생하고 있으며, 향후에도 발생할 가능성이 높다. 또한 과도한 할부수수료 요율에 의해 소비자피해가 발생하는 것을 방지하고자 할부거래법에서는 최고할부수수료 요율을 제한하고 있으며, 이자제한법상 최고이자율과 연계하고 있다. 그러나 이자제한법상 최고이자율이 인하되었음에도 불구하고, 최고할부수수료 요율은 인하되지 않았다. 따라서 선불식 할부거래업의 범주를 확대하고, 최고할부수수료 요율의 인하를 주된 내용으로 하는 시행령 개정안은 늦은 감이 있지만, 적절하다고 평가할 수 있다. 다만, 시행령 개정안은 개정의 필요성만을 고려하였으며, 이로 인해 발생할 수 있는 추가적인 문제점을 비롯하여 최고할부수수료 요율을 결정함에 있어 다른 요소를 감안하지 않았다는 점에서 개선이 필요하다. 첫째, 시행령 개정안에서는 선불식 할부거래업의 범주에 여행업과 가정의례업을 추가하고 있다. 그러나 할부거래법에서는 구체적인 요건을 정하여 시행령으로 위임하고 있으며, 그 요건 중 하나가 상조업에 준하는 소비자피해의 발생이다. 따라서 여행업 및 가정의례업을 선불식 할부거래업에 추가하기 위해서는 이 분야에서의 소비자피해 발생 현황에 대한 자료의 제시가 필요하다. 이 중 크루즈 여행에 대해서는 그 피해가 제시되었지만, 그 이외의 여행 및 가정의례업에서의 소비자피해는 제시되고 있지 않다. 또한 이를 추가하였을 경우에 개인사업자 및 영세사업자는 회사 및 자본금 요건을 충족하지 못하기 때문에 더 이상 이 분야의 사업을 영위할 수 없다. 따라서 크루즈 여행업과 소비자피해가 증명되는 가정의례업에 한정하여 선불식 할부거래업으로 추가하는 것이 바람직하다. 둘째, 시행령 개정안에서는 최고할부수수료 요율에 대해 이자제한법상 최고이자율인 연 20%로 정하고 있지만, 소비자가 청구할 수 있는 지연배상금이 연 15%라는 점을 고려할 때 적합하지 않다. 또한 할부수수료 요율과 연체수수료 요율간 격차가 존재한다. 따라서 최고할부수수료 요율을 정함에 있어서는 이러한 점을 고려하여야 할 것이므로 최고할부수수료 요율은 연 12%로 정하고, 연체이자율은 연 15%로 정하여 소비자가 청구할 수 있는 지연배상금 요율과 일치시켜야 할 것이다.

최고이자율 규제 관련 개정법률안에 대한 비교법적 고찰

김대규 한국기업법학회 2023 企業法硏究 Vol.37 No.2

A number of amendments to the 「Act On Registration Of Credit Business And Protection Of Finance Users(Credit Business Act as follows)」 and the 「Interest Limitation Act」 are pending in the Korean National Assembly. Most of them focus on lowering the maximum interest rate. The main basis for the revision of the Credit Business Act, and the Interest Limitation Act is the legislative case of major foreign countries. The level of interest rate cap in the United States of America, Germany, France, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore were presented. All of them were exemplified as countries with stricter regulations on the interest rate ceiling than Korea. This study examine the interest rate cap regulations in these countries. First, It will be examined whether the contents introduced in the amendment are correct. Next, it will be examined whether the legislation of major countries can be substantially compared with that of Korea. Finally, It would be presented the conditions necessary for the proper comparative legislation of an open society. 물가와 금리가 동시에 오르는 전환기에 연 20%로 고정된 법정 최고이자율은 취약 차주(借主)의어려움을 가중한다. 이에 금융위원회는 2022년 말에 ‘시장연동형 금리 도입’을 통해 최고이자율을탄력적으로 조정하는 방안을 검토한다고 밝혔다. 그러나 시장연동형 최고이자율 규제체계는 비탄력고정형 최고이자율 규제체계를 가진 대부업법 및 이자제한법과 상충한다. 법률 개정이 필요한 사안으로 국회 동의가 필요하다. 현재 우리나라 국회에는 대부업법 및 이자제한법 개정안이 다수 계류 중이다. 대부분 고정형 최고이자율 인하를 골자로 한다. 주요 근거는 해외 주요 국가의 입법사례다. 미국과 독일, 프랑스, 일본과 대만, 싱가포르 다섯 나라의 최고이자율 수준이 제시됐다. 모두 우리나라보다 엄격한 최고이자율 규제를 시행 중인 나라로 예시됐다. 본 연구는 이들 나라의 최고이자율 규제를 살펴보았다. 종래 미국과 일본을 중심으로 최고이자율규제에 관한 외국의 입법례를 검토하는 선행연구가 다수 있다. 하지만 외국의 이자제한법상 최고이자율을 우리 대부업법이나 이자제한법의 최고이자율과 평면적 비교에 그쳐 시비 소지가 적지 않다. 이에 본 연구는 먼저 법률 개정안에서 소개한 해외 입법 내용이 맞는지 검토한다. 그다음 주요국의법제가 우리나라 것과 실질 비교가 가능한지 검토하겠다. 끝으로 개방사회의 올바른 비교 입법을위해 필요한 조건을 제시하고 글을 맺으려 한다.

시장연동형 최고금리 도입에 관한 비교법적 연구

김대규 은행법학회 2023 은행법연구 Vol.16 No.2

Korea's economic growth rate keeps falling. The governor of the Bank of Korea recently said, "Korea is already in a phase of secular stagnation. This is because the low birth rate and aging population are severe. However, trying to solve it through a short-term policy that lowers interest rates and solves it by releasing money is a shortcut to the country's collapse," Since the 2008 global financial crisis, however, Korea has continued its short-term policy of lowering interest rates to solve the problem by releasing money. As a result, despite the recession, with unprecedented liquidity, we are facing a period of steep interest rate hikes like the 1970s. At this time, Korea's legal maximum interest rate, which is limited to 20% per year, is pushing vulnerable borrowers into the illegal private loan market. In response, the Korea Financial Services Commission(FSC) is also considering introducing a market-linked interest rate cap. If the legal interest rate cap does not reflect market interest rate fluctuations when the economy is in a recession, it restricts the credit market. If the fund intermediary function is not smooth, it can lead to a liquidity crisis in the consumer financial market in conjunction with an external bench mark rate hike. This paper first examined through a legal and historical review that the introduction of the market-linked interest rate ceiling is consistent with the purpose of enacting the 「Interest Limitation Act」 and the「Act On Registration Of Credit Business And Protection Of Finance Users(『Credit Business Act』 as follows)」 It also argues that the uniform and inelastic legal interest rate cap is not for financial consumers. This article then verified that the market-linked interest rate cap is the dominant regulatory model for consumer finance in the UK, the US, and the European Union. In addition, as part of the interest rate marketization in China and Taiwan, there is no interest rate regulation on financial products and only the highest interest rate regulation on private interest-related disputes. Finally, this article proposes the introduction of a market-linked maximum interest rate, although interest rate marketization is desirable.

간주이자 규제에 관한 법제사적 고찰

김대규(Kim, Dae Kyu) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2024 法學論叢 Vol.58 No.-

The traditional regulation on the total amount of interest can be said to be the principle that interest does not exceed the original. This was stipulated in the Korean Empire’s ’Interests Regulations, a modern law on interest restrictions in the early 20th century. The Interests Regulation focused on suppressing the total amount of interest while setting the maximum interest rate, but did not stipulate ’Deemed Interest’. This was because there were no customs such as various fees, loan deposits, or pre-interest deduction in Korean Empire. Practices such as various fees, loan deposits, or deduction of pre-deductible interest appeared in Jo-seon after the signing of the ‘Korea-Japan Trade and Market Open Treaty in 1876, when Korea’s ordinary sovereignty was damaged. As lenders, along with Japanese banks such as Cheil Bank, entered Joseon, they carried out special Japanese customs regarding the payment business regarding benefit time, fixed interest rate and methods of storing pawnbrokers. In addition, as credit allocation was carried out against the backdrop of Meiji inflation, excess demand was severe, and loan practices such as deposits, discounts, fees, deductions and overdue interest were created and transplanted into Jo-seon. In particular, the practice of receiving various fees, as well as deposits, substitute payments, and pre-interest payments, combined with external conditions of the use of Japanese currency and control of the financial system, stood out against Korean debtors. Along with the transplantation of the Japanese style godfathering practice, the regulation of deemed interest was transplanted by the japanese colonial ‘Interests Regulation’ 1911, which replaced the transplant rule as the Governor-Generals Office. However, the regulation of deemed interest remains the same even today, when it is difficult to feel extreme inflation or credit allocation during the Meiji period or after the Korean War as the years go by. In the preface of the Joseon Dynastys Daejeon Sokrok, he said, “If the law is long, it will be a waste, so it is time to open and close the law, but if it is not changed, it will be like a ‘hard and fast rules(膠柱鼓瑟), so how can it be admired?” In Japan, where the deemed interest regulation was transplanted, there have been disadvantages that limit the fee-based business model, and the exceptions are expanding. As the economic and social background of the deemed interest regulation has changed, we should also seek a modification to prevent ‘hard and fast rules’.