이태리의 은행업규제와 그 시사점에 관한 연구
The Study on the Italian Regulation over the Banking Business and Its Lessons
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Due to the recent financial crisis originated from the United States in the second half of 2007, particularly, the southwestern European countries (hereinafter PIIGS) are facing extreme difficulty. Even though the situations of Ireland, Greece and Spain among the PIIGS which are grappling with such financial crisis is severe, the case of Italy is far more severe than them because the amount of the Italian budget deficit is bigger than the sum of the amounts of the three countries’ national budget deficit. Furthermore, according to a new report, the weak financial regulation made such Italian situation worse. Also, Korea is very similar to Italy as released by a report. In this sense, the piece examines the Italian regulation over banking business and tries to find out some lessons from it as follows:First, there are several financial regulators in Italy while there is a single financial regulator in Korea. Second, the issue of electronic money is not fundraising in Italy. However, such issue is also fundraising like a deposit. Moreover, three different authorizations depending on financial institutions are required to deal electronic money in Korea while only one authorization without financial institutions is needed to treat such money in Italy. Third, the minimum capital requirement for banking business in Korea is ten times as compared with that of Italy. Fourth, there are diverse and detailed provisions for bank’s investment limits and holdings in a bank in Korea. However, there are not in Italy. Fifth, the Korean legal system has not only the internal control system but also the compliance officers while the Italian legal system has only the internal control system, not the compliance officers. Sixth, there is a prompt corrective action in Korea while there is not in Italy. Seventh, the Korean and Italian legal system have the provision for the corporate opportunity doctrine. However, Korea focuses on the directors who belong to a financial institution while Italy includes directors, large stockholders and workers. Eighth, Italian legal system has some detailed provisions for the internal and international cooperation of financial regulators. However, Korea has few provisions for the cooperation among financial regulators. Finally, Italy has the temporary suspension for the administrative and control bodies’ power in a bank without suspending its banking business while Korea has not.
Abstract
Due to the recent financial crisis originated from the United States in the second half of 2007, particularly, the southwestern European countries (hereinafter PIIGS) are facing extreme difficulty. Even though the situations of Ireland, Greece and Spain among the PIIGS which are grappling with such financial crisis is severe, the case of Italy is far more severe than them because the amount of the Italian budget deficit is bigger than the sum of the amounts of the three countries’ national budget deficit. Furthermore, according to a new report, the weak financial regulation made such Italian situation worse. Also, Korea is very similar to Italy as released by a report. In this sense, the piece examines the Italian regulation over banking business and tries to find out some lessons from it as follows:First, there are several financial regulators in Italy while there is a single financial regulator in Korea. Second, the issue of electronic money is not fundraising in Italy. However, such issue is also fundraising like a deposit. Moreover, three different authorizations depending on financial institutions are required to deal electronic money in Korea while only one authorization without financial institutions is needed to treat such money in Italy. Third, the minimum capital requirement for banking business in Korea is ten times as compared with that of Italy. Fourth, there are diverse and detailed provisions for bank’s investment limits and holdings in a bank in Korea. However, there are not in Italy. Fifth, the Korean legal system has not only the internal control system but also the compliance officers while the Italian legal system has only the internal control system, not the compliance officers. Sixth, there is a prompt corrective action in Korea while there is not in Italy. Seventh, the Korean and Italian legal system have the provision for the corporate opportunity doctrine. However, Korea focuses on the directors who belong to a financial institution while Italy includes directors, large stockholders and workers. Eighth, Italian legal system has some detailed provisions for the internal and international cooperation of financial regulators. However, Korea has few provisions for the cooperation among financial regulators. Finally, Italy has the temporary suspension for the administrative and control bodies’ power in a bank without suspending its banking business while Korea has not.
참고문헌 (33)
- 김영선, "예고된 伊강등 충격 클 듯(상보)", 파이낸셜뉴스(2011.9.20.), ~ (2011)
- 김원기, "회사기회유용금지의 법리 - 미국 법원들의 중요 고려요건과 그 적용가능성 -", 기업법연구, 21(3), pp.83~112 (2007), 한국기업법학회
- 김정호, "회사기회유용금지의 법리", 경영법률, 17(2), pp.129~178 (2007), 한국경영법률학회
- KERI Insight: PIIGS 국가부도 위기의 교훈, "김필헌", 한국경제연구원, ~ (2010)
- 노희진, "국제 금융위기 이후 자본시장의 발전 방안", 자본시장Weekly(자본시장연구원, 2009. 07. 07 ~ 07. 13), ~ (2009)
- 박정현, "이탈리아, 구제금융說…실제 가능성은?(종합)", ChosunBiz(2011.11.28), ~ (2011)
- 백정웅, "더피사건 -회사성장기회론의 정당성 기준-", 기업법연구, 20(3), pp.235~260 (2006), 한국기업법학회
- 백정웅, "미국의 회사기회유용이론과 우리 상법 ― 델라웨어주의 구스 사건을 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 25(3), pp.361~393 (2006), 한국상사법학회
- 백정웅, "퍼스트 링컨우드 지주(First Lincolnwood Corp.)사건 등에 나타난 힘의 원천이론의 비교법적 고찰", 상사법연구, 24(4) (2006), 한국상사법학회
- 백정웅, "한국 금융지주회사에 대한 적기시정 조치", 원광법학, 23(2), pp.365~404 (2007), 법학연구소
- 백정웅, "회사기회유용이론 -밀러 사건의 2단계 기준을 중심으로-", 상사판례연구, 21(3), pp.91~121 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 백정웅, "회사기회유용이론의 적용기준과 항변사유* - 미국법제를 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 16(2), pp.419~466 (2009), 한국비교사법학회
- 세계법제정보센터, "세계법제정보: 동유럽: 러시아: 최신동향: 은행 최저 자본금 증액 논의", 법제처(2012.3.15.), ~ (2012)
- 이병윤, "금산분리 관련 제도의 현황과 논점", 금융연구, 20 (2006), 한국금융학회
- 이재명, "아하 그렇구나 적기시정조치", 한겨레(2012.5.13.), ~ (2012)
- 장정모, "글로벌 금융위기 이후 유럽의 자기자본규제", 유럽금융시장포커스, (가을) (2012), 자본시장연구원
- 금융기관 적기시정조치의 실효성 제고방안 연구, "재정경제부", 재정경제부·한국개발연구원, ~
- 천경훈, "개정상법상 회사기회유용 금지규정의 해석론 연구", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.143~213 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 적기시정조치 제도 개선, "한국개발연구원", 한국개발연구원, ~ (2005)
- Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations, "American Law Institute", ~ (1994)
- Bryan A. Garner, "Black’s Law Dictionary" (2001), West Group
- Cleary Gottlieb, "News: Italy Repeals 15% Cap on Bank Equity Ownership by Non-Financial Companies", Cleary Gottlieb (December 3, 2008), ~ (2008)
- João A.C. Santos, "Banking and Commerce: How Does the United States Compare to Other Countries?", Econ. Rev, 1997, pp.14~ (1998)
- Juan Sergio Lopez, "ITALIAN MUTUAL BANKS: Performance, Efficiency and Mergers and Acquisitions" (2002), Foreward
- Leonardo Giani, "Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Banking Regulation: The United States and Italy in Comparison", Rev. Banking & Fin. L, 29(Spring), pp.405~ (2010)
- Luca Enriques, "Creditors Versus Capital Formation: The Case Against the European Legal Capital Rules", CORNELL L. REV, 86, pp.1165~ (2001)
- The Cost of Banking Regulation, "Luigi Guiso", CRSP, ~, pp.CRSP Working Paper No. 611 (2006)
- Temi di Discussione: Start-up Banks' Default and Role of Capital, "Massimo Libertucci", Banca d’Italia, ~, pp.Working Paper No. 890 (2012)
- Michael K. O’Neal, "Update on Prompt Corrective Action and Other Regulatory Enforcement Powers", Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep, 48(Summer), pp.259~ (1994)
- Roberta S. Karmel, "The Controversy over Systemic Risk Regulation", Brook. J. Int’l L, 35, pp.823~ (2010)
- The World Bank, "World Bank Survey III - June 2008 (MS Excel file, 768kb)", The World Bank, ~ (2012)
- Wikipedia, "PIGS (economics)", Wikipedia, ~ (2012)
- "World Development Indicators database", World Bank, 1 July 2011, ~ (2011)