초록 열기/닫기 버튼
(구)증권거래법부터 현행 자본시장법에 이르기까지 법률로 증권회사(또는 금융투자업자)와 그 임직원의 손실보전 또는 이익보장 약정을 금지하였고, 대법원판례는 그 금지를 위반한 약정을 강행법규 또는 사회질서에 반하는 행위로 보아 무효로 판시하여 왔다. 그 논거의 가장 중심에 놓인 것은 손실보전 또는 이익보장 약정이 증권투자에서의 자기책임의 원칙에 반한다는 것이다. 투자자가 투자로 인한 위험을 인수한 경우 그 위험을 이전하거나 감축하고자 하는 활동은 매우 자연스러운 활동이다. 장외파생상품거래는 바로 그러한 투자자가 부담하는 투자위험을 이전 또는 감축하는 대표적인 수단이다. 금융투자업자가 영업인가를 받아 적법하게 장외파생상품거래를 하는 경우, 그 거래가 손실보전 또는 이익보장 약정의 기능을 한다고 하여도 이는 정당한 거래로서 자본시장법 제55조 위반이 아니라고 보아야 한다. 자본시장법 제55조의 기초를 이루는 정책적 고려사항은 대법원판례가 강조해온 자기책임의 원칙에서 찾기 보다는 금융투자업자의 위법한 투자위험 인수와 이로 인한 금융투자업자의 재무건전성에의 악영향 발생 및 불평등한 대우로 인한 신뢰하락 등을 방지하는데서 찾아야 할 것이다. 이러한 정책적 고려사항에 비추어 볼 때 자본시장법 제55조에 규정된 금지를 강행법규 또는 사회질서에 해당하는 것으로 보기는 어려울 것이다.
The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits financial investment service companies such as securities companies and their officers and employees from agreeing to compensate losses suffered by an investor. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that the prohibition is mandatory and thus a loss compensation agreement in violation of this prohibition is null and void. The most important rationale of the Supreme Court Decisions is that such an agreement runs counter to the principle that an investment must be made at the investor’s own risk. However, when an investor takes a risk on a certain investment, it is quite natural for her/him to engage in activities to transfer or reduce the risk she/he has taken or plans to take on. OTC derivative transactions are a typical means investors use to transfer or reduce risks they are exposed to. The rationale that the prohibition is based on the principle that an investment must be made at the investor’s own risk is no longer persuasive in the light of the changes in legal and regulatory environment where financial investment service companies such as securities companies can obtain a license to engage in derivative transactions with its customers. An OTC derivatives transaction between a duly licensed securities company and an investor in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations should be treated as legitimate and not violating the said prohibition, even if the derivatives transaction has the same economic function as a loss compensation agreement. It is also submitted that the policy considerations underlying said prohibition are the prevention of the following: (i) illegal or improper taking of investment risk by financial investment service companies, (ii) the negative impact of such risk taking on the financial soundness of such financial investment service companies and the loss of confidence due to unequal treatment among investors through such risk taking. If said prohibition are based on the above-mentioned policy considerations rather than the principle that investors must make investment for their own risk, the provision providing for said prohibition should not be regarded as mandatory law making a loss compensation agreement null and void.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
loss compensation, yield protection, financial investment service company, securities company, risk transfer, mandatory law, social order, public policy
