키코계약의 무효·취소 주장은 키코 관련 법적 분쟁에서의 핵심 쟁점 중 하나이다. 키코계약의 무효 여부는 위 계약의 약관규제법 위반 여부와 민법 제104조(불공정한 법률행위) 해당 여부가 주된 쟁점이다. 키코계약의 약관규제법 위반 여부와 관련해서는 (i) 키코계약의 개별 계약조항이 아닌 ‘키코계약의 구조’ 자체를 약관이라고 볼 수 있는지와 (ii) 약관규제법 위반의 불공정성이 있는지가 문제된다. ‘계약의 구조’라 하더라도 당사자간 교섭에 의한 변경가능성이 없는 계약조건인 경우에는 약관이라고 볼 수 있겠지만, 키코계약의 구조는 당사자간 개별교섭을 거칠 것이 예정되어 있어 약관이라고 보기 어렵고, 약관규제법에 위반되는 불공정성도 없다고 생각된다. 키코계약을 취소할 수 있는지 여부와 관련해서는 (i) 은행의 사기(민법 제110조) 또는 (ii) 기업의 착오(민법 제109조) 여부가 주된 쟁점이나, 대부분 키코계약 체결 전후의 구체적인 사실관계에 따라 결론이 달라질 것이다. 다만, 기업과 은행 모두 환율이 계약기간 동안 일정 범위에서 안정적으로 변동할 것이라는 예측 내지 기대하에 키코계약을 체결한 사정을 ‘당사자 쌍방의 공통의 착오’로 보아 취소를 인정할 수 있는지 여부가 문제이나, 이는 키코계약 체결 여부를 결정함에 있어 고려한 사정의 하나이거나 계약의 동기의 착오 문제일 뿐 계약체결의 전제였다고 볼 수는 없으므로 위 법리를 적용할 수 없다고 생각한다. 결론적으로, 키코계약 체결과정에서 은행의 적합성 원칙과 설명의무 위반사실이 인정된다 하더라도 그러한 의무 위반을 이유로 키코계약의 효력 자체를 소급적으로 부인할 수는 없다고 보아야 할 것이다.

The argument of Invalidation or Cancellation of KIKO (Knock-In Knock Out) Foreign Currency Option Contracts ("KIKO Contracts") is one of the critical legal issues in relation to the KIKO legal proceedings. Whether KIKO Contracts are invalid depends on that KIKO Contracts are in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and KIKO Contracts fall under Article 104 (Unfair Legal Act) of Civil Act. Whether KIKO Contracts are in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act depends on (i) "the structure of KIKO Contracts itself instead of the individual provision of KIKO Contracts can be deemed the Standardized Contract; and (ii) there is any unfairness from violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Even as to“the structure of the contract”, if the individual terms and conditions, which are composed of structure of the contract, cannot be amended or revised through the negotiation between the parties, then such structure of the contract can be deemed a standardized contract. However, the structure of KIKO Contracts is presumed to be made through the negotiation between the parties, and thus the structure itself of KIKO Contracts cannot be deemed the standardized contract. Also, the structure of KIKO Contracts is deemed not to have any unfairness in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Whether KIKO Contracts are cancelable depends mainly on (i) the banks' fraud (Article 110 of Civil Act) or (ii) the companies' mistake (Article 109 of Civil Act). However, the result of such issue will be different depending on the specific factual background before and after execution of most KIKO Contracts. Provided, however, it is problematic whether to acknowledge such circumstance that the companies and banks entered the KIKO Contracts under both parties’ forecasting or expecting that the foreign exchange currency rate would be steadily fluctuating within certain range for the contract term, as “both parties’ common mistake” for cancellation of KIKO Contracts; instead, such circumstance can be merely considered as one of the circumstances as to whether to decide to execute KIKO Contracts or as an issue of mistake of motivation of contracting, but it cannot be deemed to be a presumption of execution of the KIKO Contracts. As such, the above legal theory cannot be applied to the KIKO Contracts. In conclusion, although the bank's violation of suitability principle and duty of explanation is acknowledged in the process of negotiation and execution of the KIKO Contracts, effectiveness and validity of the KIKO Contracts cannot be denied retrospectively due to such violation.

The argument of Invalidation or Cancellation of KIKO (Knock-In Knock Out) Foreign Currency Option Contracts ("KIKO Contracts") is one of the critical legal issues in relation to the KIKO legal proceedings. Whether KIKO Contracts are invalid depends on that KIKO Contracts are in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and KIKO Contracts fall under Article 104 (Unfair Legal Act) of Civil Act. Whether KIKO Contracts are in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act depends on (i) "the structure of KIKO Contracts itself instead of the individual provision of KIKO Contracts can be deemed the Standardized Contract; and (ii) there is any unfairness from violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Even as to“the structure of the contract”, if the individual terms and conditions, which are composed of structure of the contract, cannot be amended or revised through the negotiation between the parties, then such structure of the contract can be deemed a standardized contract. However, the structure of KIKO Contracts is presumed to be made through the negotiation between the parties, and thus the structure itself of KIKO Contracts cannot be deemed the standardized contract. Also, the structure of KIKO Contracts is deemed not to have any unfairness in violation of Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Whether KIKO Contracts are cancelable depends mainly on (i) the banks' fraud (Article 110 of Civil Act) or (ii) the companies' mistake (Article 109 of Civil Act). However, the result of such issue will be different depending on the specific factual background before and after execution of most KIKO Contracts. Provided, however, it is problematic whether to acknowledge such circumstance that the companies and banks entered the KIKO Contracts under both parties’ forecasting or expecting that the foreign exchange currency rate would be steadily fluctuating within certain range for the contract term, as “both parties’ common mistake” for cancellation of KIKO Contracts; instead, such circumstance can be merely considered as one of the circumstances as to whether to decide to execute KIKO Contracts or as an issue of mistake of motivation of contracting, but it cannot be deemed to be a presumption of execution of the KIKO Contracts. As such, the above legal theory cannot be applied to the KIKO Contracts. In conclusion, although the bank's violation of suitability principle and duty of explanation is acknowledged in the process of negotiation and execution of the KIKO Contracts, effectiveness and validity of the KIKO Contracts cannot be denied retrospectively due to such violation.

, , , , , , ,

KIKO, Foreign Currency Option, Invalidation, Cancellation, Standardized Contracts, Unfairness, Both parties’ common mistake