지적재산권신탁의 한계와 활성화 방안-일본신탁업법상의 제도와 비교를 통하여-
Limits of Intellectual Property Trust and Activation Measures
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article is to discuss “Corporate Group Trust” which is to effectively manage the intellectual property of corporate group and “TLO Trust” which is to transfer technology. In case of intellectual property trust, delegation of some of trust affairs to third parties may need to be allowed to meet with the trustor’s interests and also to activate intellectual property trust. Such cases would be where the trustee of Corporate Group Trust and TLO Trust for transfer of technology discussed in this article is a licensed trustee business entity. However, the Capital Markets Act prohibits trustee to delegate trust affairs to third parties. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend the Capital Markets Act to allow delegation of trust administration to third parties (i.e. outsourcing). Korea has not adopted Corporate Group Trust system. Corporate Group Trust system has a distinctive character from other ordinary trusts that trustor, trustee and beneficiary are all within the same corporate group. This type of trust does not need to mandate strict entry requirements or conduct regulations on trustee. Considering this, it would be important to lower entry requirements and conduct regulations on trustee so that corporate group can manage intellectual properties owned by its affiliates more efficiently, not only for a particular corporate group but also for Korea to enhance its national competitiveness. For TLO Trust, whereas the government supports superior ones among technologies entrusted to technology trust management organization with a part of expenses to protect the rights such as patent fees, there is no such support for technologies entrusted to trustee. If technology has been entrusted with the same purpose and is also superior one, differentiating governmental incentive depending on who is trustee, let alone regulatory arbitrage, may have issues of equal treatment. Therefore, even if trustee is a licensed trust business entity, it shall be provided with incentives same with the case where the trustee is the technology trust management organization, which will also contribute the activation of intellectual property trust.
Abstract
This article is to discuss “Corporate Group Trust” which is to effectively manage the intellectual property of corporate group and “TLO Trust” which is to transfer technology. In case of intellectual property trust, delegation of some of trust affairs to third parties may need to be allowed to meet with the trustor’s interests and also to activate intellectual property trust. Such cases would be where the trustee of Corporate Group Trust and TLO Trust for transfer of technology discussed in this article is a licensed trustee business entity. However, the Capital Markets Act prohibits trustee to delegate trust affairs to third parties. Accordingly, it is necessary to amend the Capital Markets Act to allow delegation of trust administration to third parties (i.e. outsourcing). Korea has not adopted Corporate Group Trust system. Corporate Group Trust system has a distinctive character from other ordinary trusts that trustor, trustee and beneficiary are all within the same corporate group. This type of trust does not need to mandate strict entry requirements or conduct regulations on trustee. Considering this, it would be important to lower entry requirements and conduct regulations on trustee so that corporate group can manage intellectual properties owned by its affiliates more efficiently, not only for a particular corporate group but also for Korea to enhance its national competitiveness. For TLO Trust, whereas the government supports superior ones among technologies entrusted to technology trust management organization with a part of expenses to protect the rights such as patent fees, there is no such support for technologies entrusted to trustee. If technology has been entrusted with the same purpose and is also superior one, differentiating governmental incentive depending on who is trustee, let alone regulatory arbitrage, may have issues of equal treatment. Therefore, even if trustee is a licensed trust business entity, it shall be provided with incentives same with the case where the trustee is the technology trust management organization, which will also contribute the activation of intellectual property trust.
참고문헌 (22)
- 광장신탁법연구회, "주석신탁법" (2013), 박영사
- 井上聡, "信託の仕組み" (2007), 日本経済新聞出版社
- 井上聡, "新しい信託30講" (2007), 弘文堂
- 新井 誠, "信託ビジネスのニュートレンド" (2008), 経済産業調査会
- 小出卓哉, "逐条概説信託業法" (2008), 清文社
- Agency Perspective, "From Ideas to Assets: Investing Wisely in Intellectual Property" (2002), Wiley
- Jason H.P. Kravitt, "Securitization of Financial Assets, Second Edition" (1997), Aspen Law & Business
- 강헌, "특허신탁에서의 법적 쟁점에 관한 연구", 경영법률, 21(3), pp.241~260 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
- 강희철, "자산유동화법에 의한 자산유동화의 한계와 이를 극복하기 위한 수단으로서의 비정형유동화에 관한 고찰", 증권법연구, 4(1), pp.177~238 (2003), 한국증권법학회
- 권재열, "지적재산권의 증권화에 관한 서설적 고찰 -새로운 자금조달수단으로서의 가능성 검토", 증권법연구, 5(2), pp.223~257 (2004), 한국증권법학회
- 권재열, "자금조달 목적의 특허신탁 활성화를 위한 법제도 개선방안", 상사판례연구, 19(4), pp.221~250 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 김건식, "금융자산의 증권화", 상사법연구, 17(2), pp.75~112 (1998), 한국상사법학회
- 김병연, "자산유동화와 지적재산권신탁에 대한 법률적 검토 - 기술·특허권의 유동화를 중심으로 -", 상사법연구, 26(1), pp.253~280 (2007), 한국상사법학회
- 맹수석, "지식재산권의 신탁과 유동화 방안", 증권법연구, 7(2), pp.249~279 (2006), 한국증권법학회
- 손승우, "특허신탁관리제도에 관한 법적 고찰", 지식재산연구, 3(2), pp.47~71 (2008), 한국지식재산연구원
- 윤부찬, "자산유동화제도에 관한 고찰", 부동산법학, 6, pp.105~153 (2000), 한국부동산법학회
- 이미현, "자산유동화에관한법률에 대한 고찰", 인권과 정의, (275), pp.122~142 (1999), 대한변호사협회
- 정연덕, "기술 이전 활성화를 위한 특허신탁사업 활성화 방안", 지식재산연구, 5(2), pp.25~53 (2010), 한국지식재산연구원
- 차현진, "우리나라 자산유동화증권(ABS) 시장의 현황과 발전방향", 금융시스템 리뷰, (4), pp.84~106 (2001), 한국은행
- Claire A. Hill, "Securitization: A Low-Cost Sweetener for Lemons", Washington University Law Quarterly, 74(1061), pp.1061~1126 (1996)
- Jay C. Klear, "Applicability of Private Equity Fund Structure in the Furtherance of Intellectual Property Securitizations", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 2002(796), pp.796~822 (2002)
- Jennifer Sylva, "Bowie Bonds sold for far more than a Song: The Securitization of Intellectual Property as a Super-Charged Vehicle for High Technology Financing", Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J, 15(195), pp.195~230 (1999)
