금융기관 임직원 제재 절차의 공정성과 투명성 확보를 위한 법제 개선 방안
Improvements of the System of Sanctions on Officers and Employees of Financial Institutions in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the area of financial regulation, the system of sanctions against officers and employees of financial institutions is very important, in that the imposition of sanctions on them may greatly affect the reputation of the concerned officers and employees, and further may restrict their employment in financial institutions for a certain period under the current laws and regulations. In other words, it is believed that the sanction may restrict the "basic or fundamental rights" of a person under the Constitution. In that respect, this article seeks to deal with analyzing the current system of sanctions against officers and employees of financial institutions, in order to find out the problems thereof and to suggest certain recommendations for the improvement of the current sanction system by conducting a comparative analysis of the United States and the United Kingdom cases with respect to the relevant issues. In particular, this article focuses on the analysis and recommendations in terms of procuring transparency, fairness and reliance in the sanction decision process based on the "due process" principle. Thus, this article suggests the following. First, a unified and consolidated law needs to be enacted in order to maintain the consistency in the respect of sanction grounds and types of sanctions among financial institutions. Second, the new law should include the types of sanctions and sanction grounds as well as sanction procedures which are currently prescribed in the relevant sanction regulations and rules enacted by the financial regulator without manifest delegation from the relevant statutes. Third, a hearing process should be adopted in the procedures of decision of all types of sanctions. Fourth, it is necessary to allow a sufficient opportunity for financial institutions' officers or employees to argue against the financial regulator’s sanction position and reasons therefor and to appeal the decision held to another separate authority or institution independent from the financial regulator. Finally, an independent decision committee, which consists of outside specialized and independent members and has powers of final sanction decision, needs to be established under the Financial Services Commission, a financial policy decision-maker, in order to make a fair and transparent sanction decision.
Abstract
In the area of financial regulation, the system of sanctions against officers and employees of financial institutions is very important, in that the imposition of sanctions on them may greatly affect the reputation of the concerned officers and employees, and further may restrict their employment in financial institutions for a certain period under the current laws and regulations. In other words, it is believed that the sanction may restrict the "basic or fundamental rights" of a person under the Constitution. In that respect, this article seeks to deal with analyzing the current system of sanctions against officers and employees of financial institutions, in order to find out the problems thereof and to suggest certain recommendations for the improvement of the current sanction system by conducting a comparative analysis of the United States and the United Kingdom cases with respect to the relevant issues. In particular, this article focuses on the analysis and recommendations in terms of procuring transparency, fairness and reliance in the sanction decision process based on the "due process" principle. Thus, this article suggests the following. First, a unified and consolidated law needs to be enacted in order to maintain the consistency in the respect of sanction grounds and types of sanctions among financial institutions. Second, the new law should include the types of sanctions and sanction grounds as well as sanction procedures which are currently prescribed in the relevant sanction regulations and rules enacted by the financial regulator without manifest delegation from the relevant statutes. Third, a hearing process should be adopted in the procedures of decision of all types of sanctions. Fourth, it is necessary to allow a sufficient opportunity for financial institutions' officers or employees to argue against the financial regulator’s sanction position and reasons therefor and to appeal the decision held to another separate authority or institution independent from the financial regulator. Finally, an independent decision committee, which consists of outside specialized and independent members and has powers of final sanction decision, needs to be established under the Financial Services Commission, a financial policy decision-maker, in order to make a fair and transparent sanction decision.
참고문헌 (17)
- 고동원, "은행 집행임원 제도에 관한 법적 검 토", 은행법연구, 4(2) (2011), 은행법학회
- 김태진, "개정 상법하의 집행임원제 운용을 위한 법적 검토", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.295~384 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 윤광균, "금융감독상의 제재와 적법절차에 관한 고찰", 저스티스, (104), pp.54~74 (2008), 한국법학원
- 이병화, "축조해설 은행 법", pp.335~ (2008), 삼우사
- 康鉉浩, "금융감독원의 법적 성격", 공법연구, 31(3), pp.5~5 (2003), 한국공법학회
- 금융감독원, "금융법무다이제스트", 통권 : 23, pp.71~ (2010), 금융감독원 법무실
- "대통령령으로 정하는 조치는 임원에 대한 조치 내용과 동일하다(시행령 제374조 제2항)", ~
- ""처분"이라 함은 "행정청이 행하는 구체적 사실에 관한 법집행으로서의 공권력의 행사 또는 그 거부와 기타 이에 준하는 행정작용"을 말한다(「행정절차법」 제2조 제2호)", ~
- "“당사자 등은 청문조서의 기재 내용을 열람ㆍ확인할 수 있으며, 이의가 있을 때에는 그 정정을 요구할 수 있다.”(「행정절차법」 제34조 제2항)", ~
- 김성수, "금융감독기관의 제재조치와 권리구제", 행정법연구, 20, pp.23~50 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- "“기타 금융시장의 신용질서를 문란하게 하거나 부당ㆍ불건전한 영업 또는 업무 처리 를 한 경우”를 들 수 있다(검사제재규정 제5조 제7호)", ~
- "헌법재판소 1991.2.11. 선고 90헌가27", ~
- 김성수, "투명성과 정 보 공개의 실현을 위한 한국행정법의 과제", 동아시아행정법, (6), pp.162~ (2004), 동아시아행정법학회
- "'s Division of Enforcement" (2012), 미국 증권거래위원회[URL]
- "Lord Chancellor", Michael Blair &George Walker, op. cit., 133~
- FSA, "Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual (DEPP)", ~
- 고동원, "영국의 금융기관 임ㆍ직원 제재 제도와 우리 나라에 대한 시사점, In 21세기 상사법ㆍ 민사소송법의 과제", pp.129~ (2009), 법문사
