2010년 증권거래법 판례의 회고와 전망
Review and Prospect of the Securities Cases in 2010
3
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
From Dec. 2009 to Nov. 2010, there were several cases by the Supreme Court relating to the traditional issues in securities regulation. They are about civil liabilities resulting from an annual report containing an untrue statement or omitting a material fact, insider trading, and antifraud provision. And the validity of compensation for losses contracted between individuals was treated. Among these cases, I will review the validity of compensation for losses and some points about insider trading. Old Securities Exchange Act provided that securities company, and its director and employees shall not solicitate the investment by means of the promise of compensation for losses. Is the promise valid and enforceable? Does the securities company be able to claim to return the profits? Generally such promise is invalid. But the case ruled that when individuals promised to compensate for losses in investments, the contract is valid. In the insider trading, the questions of who is subject to the trading constraints of the prohibition and what is the material inside information have been ones of the most interesting aspects. The Act provided that the insider or tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain. In the hightech and speed society, it is difficult to determine who is tippee or sub-tippee. The case ruled that when someone joined the unlawful insider trading with the tippee, he or she should be responsible for the trading. Another case ruled that the non-public information should be concrete enough to be material. In this paper, the ratio decidendi in these cases will be reviewed and commented.
Abstract
From Dec. 2009 to Nov. 2010, there were several cases by the Supreme Court relating to the traditional issues in securities regulation. They are about civil liabilities resulting from an annual report containing an untrue statement or omitting a material fact, insider trading, and antifraud provision. And the validity of compensation for losses contracted between individuals was treated. Among these cases, I will review the validity of compensation for losses and some points about insider trading. Old Securities Exchange Act provided that securities company, and its director and employees shall not solicitate the investment by means of the promise of compensation for losses. Is the promise valid and enforceable? Does the securities company be able to claim to return the profits? Generally such promise is invalid. But the case ruled that when individuals promised to compensate for losses in investments, the contract is valid. In the insider trading, the questions of who is subject to the trading constraints of the prohibition and what is the material inside information have been ones of the most interesting aspects. The Act provided that the insider or tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain. In the hightech and speed society, it is difficult to determine who is tippee or sub-tippee. The case ruled that when someone joined the unlawful insider trading with the tippee, he or she should be responsible for the trading. Another case ruled that the non-public information should be concrete enough to be material. In this paper, the ratio decidendi in these cases will be reviewed and commented.
참고문헌 (15)
- 강대섭, "유가증권신고서등의 부실기재로 인한 손해배상청구권자의 범위- 유통시장에서의 증권취득자 포함 여부 -", 상사판례연구, 19(3), pp.219~257 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 김건식, "증권회사직원의 이익보증약정과 투자자의 구제", 민사판례연구, 21 (1997)
- 김건식, "자본시장법" (2009), 두성사
- 금융감독원, "금융법무다이제스트", (23) (2010)
- 박임출, "內部者去來 規制法制의 改善方案", 증권법연구, 4(2), pp.67~105 (2003), 한국증권법학회
- 변제호, "자본시장법" (2009), 지원출판사
- 성희활, "내부자거래 규제에 있어서 미공개 중요정보의「성립시기」에 관한 고찰", 주식 (1999)
- 이상훈, "공정공시제도 검토-미국과의 차이점을 중심으로", BFL, (29) (2008)
- 임재연, "자본시장법" (2010), 박영사
- 한국증권법학회, "자본시장법(주석서Ⅰ, Ⅱ)" (2009), 박영사
- 堀口亙, "ハンドブﾂク證券取引法" (2006), 勁草書房
- 磯村保, "損失保證ないし利益保證約束をめぐる裁判例の批判的檢討", 民商法雜誌, 113(4) (1996)
- 松井勝, "證券取引法" (1993), 中央經濟社
- 日野正晴, "金融商品取引法" (2009), 中央經濟社
- 河本一郞, "金融商品取引法讀本", ~ (2009)