금융지주회사의 자회사 은행에 대한 자본확충에 관한 법리적 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is not sensible of a financial holding company to be reluctant to infuse capital to remedy its subsidiaries in unsound financial conditions, on the grounds of corporate separateness and shareholder's limited liability, while controlling the subsidiaries and receiving dividends from their profits. The source of strength doctrine. and the cross-guarantee provision in financial holding company system will ultimately result in contributing to vindication of capital infusion into subsidiary banks. The source of strength doctrine is substantiated through capital infusion into subsidiary banks. The doctrine of source of strength is materialized, denying corporate separateness, through regulation of limited liability, and the cross-guarantee provision may be referred to as what the source of strength doctrine is realized as both horizontally and vertically.
A disparity in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act might emerge, however, for the Act provides only the rights for the holding company to infuse capital into the subsidiaries, but no liability to do the same. But the discrepancy is not grave enough to recognize the liability of capital infusion from the holding company, even though we apply the piercing corporate veil and the regulation of limited liability. Neither is it compatible with the present Korean law system to impose the liability of capital infusion by applying the theory of source of strength. while the holding company could be encouraged to bail out, at its discretion. subsidiaries in unstable financial status. The holding company could be allowed to choose to include its liability of capital infusion into the subsidiaries as one of business purposes in its incorporation articles ; when the liability is included. financial aids are legally imposed on the holding company when its subsidiary bank is at a financial stake, and the holding company will be subject to governmental sanction when it fails to abide by the provision in the articles. No similar theory in the American system was found that can be related to cross-guarantee in the Korean juridical system. Also property rights are likely to be infringed when cross-guarantee is legislated.
The Management Guidelines in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act (Chapter 50, Section 2) can be best argued as what the doctrine of source of strength can be extracted from or based upon, but it leaves much to be desired to interpret the Guidelines as a definite ground from which the doctrine has been derived. Also Prompt Corrective Action, or the provision regarding supervision on the holding company (Chapter 36 through 38 of the Act), do not define such an express measure that orders the holding company to infuse capital into subsidiaries that do not meet requirements in capital adequacy ratio, which, along with Chapter 10 of Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, hardly serves a solid basis of the source of strength doctrine.
As of April. 2009, when the Korean government pours public funds to help domestic banks improve their capital adequacy ratio, the management crisis should be handled by the holding company itself, not letting its subsidiary banks be rescued by means of social expense costs. The Korean financial system should first head for a system in which the financial holding company can manage independently and account accordingly. Then the source of strength doctrine and the cross-guarantee provision(system) should be introduced later in the future into the Korean judicial system, and legislation of such systems to impose on or to protect the financial holding company is not yet desirable.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 자회사 은행에 대한 자본확충의 이론적 근거
• Ⅲ. 현행법상 자회사은행에 대한 자본확충 관련 규정
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 윤창술, "현행의 금융지주회사제도에 대한 소고" 한국기업법학회 (16) : 303-322, 2004
• 2 徐世源, "지주회사의 지휘권과 책임" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 56-85, 2007
• 3 김건식, "지주회사의 운영과 회사법:총론적 고찰 in: 지주회사와 법" 小花 2008
• 4 김문재, "지주회사의 도입에 따른 회사법의 향방-지배와 책임을 중심으로-" 한국상사법학회 18 (18): 1999
• 5 최성근, "지주회사와 사업회사간 支配 · 牽制의 適正化를 위한 해석론 · 입법론" 한국비교사법학회 10 (10): 293-320, 2003
• 6 서완석, "지배주주와 주주유한책임원칙" 한국상사법학회 23 (23): 407-462, 2004
• 7 조지현, "주주유한책임원칙의 제한 -독일법상의 실체파악책임을 중심으로-" 한국상사법학회 23 (23): 297-321, 2004
• 8 김대연, "종속회사의 파산과 지배회사의 책임 -종속회사 채권자의 보호방안을 중심으로-" 한국상사법학회 23 (23): 363-405, 2004
• 9 맹수석, "자은행의 경영부실과 은행지주회사의 책임" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 149-176, 2006
• 10 김자봉, "위기시 지주회사의 유동성공급자 기능과 시사점" 금융연구원 17 (17): 2008
• 11 백정웅, "우리나라 금융지주회사법의 규제법리에 관한 비교법적 연구" 한국상사법학회 26 (26): 361-407, 2008
• 12 김용재, "산업자본의 은행 소유와 관련한 법적 쟁점" 한국증권법학회 2 (2): 2001
• 13 민세진, "보험지주회사의 법적 쟁점" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (29) : 2008
• 14 김형배, "민법학강의 8판" 신조사 2009
• 15 최장봉, "금융지주회사집단감독체계의 구축방안" 금융연구원 2004
• 16 안예홍, "금융지주회사제도 도입과 관련한 논의" 한국은행 은행국 은행연구팀 2000
• 17 김동훈, "금융지주회사의 규제와 책임" 한국상사법학회 20 (20): 2002
• 18 이영대, "금융지주회사의 규제에 관한 연구 -미국의 법제를 중심으로-" 한국상사법학회 20 (20): 2001
• 19 이영대, "금융지주회사의 규제에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2002
• 20 김문재, "금융지주회사법에 대한 분석과 제언" 한국비교사법학회 8 (8): 2001
• 21 이광제, "금융지주회사법 해설 in: 법제" 법제처 2001
• 22 윤법렬, "금융지주회사법 소고" 서울대학교 금융법연구센터 (34) : 2009
• 23 금융위원회, "금융지주회사 제도개선방안"
• 24 노혁준, "금융기관의 구조조정과 금융지주회사" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (7) : 2004
• 25 이명활, "금융그룹차원의 리스크 평가 및 관리" 한국금융연구원 2008
• 26 백정웅, "금융그룹 계열사간 위험전이 방지를 위한 법제도 연구" 예금보험공사 8 (8): 79-139, 2007
• 27 지동현, "금융구조조정과 금융지주회사" 한국금융연구원 4 (4): 2000
• 28 금융감독원, "금융감독개론"
• 29 노일석, "결합기업에 관한 연구" 한국상사법학회 19 (19): 2000
• 30 崔張鉉, "持株會社의 會社法的 問題에 관한 考察 - 少數株主 및 債權者 保護를 중심으로 -" 한국기업법학회 9 : 139-165, 2002
• 31 노혁준, "完全持株會社의 設立 및 運用" 한국비교사법학회 11 (11): 119-156, 2004
• 32 Robert C. Clark, "The Regulation of Financial Holding Company" 92 : 1979
• 33 Howell E. Jackson, "The Regulation of Financial Holding Companies- Entry for New Palgrave Dictionary of Law and Economics"
• 34 Howell E. Jackson, "The Expanding Obligations of Financial Holding Companies" 107 : 1994
• 35 "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 106th Congress"
• 36 Adam B. Ashcraft, "Are Banking Holding Companies a Source of Strength to Their Banking Subsidiaries?" Federal Reserve Bank 2004