증권형 크라우드펀딩제도 활성화를 위한 제도 개선방안 = Revitalization of Securities-Based Crowdfunding Systems in Korea

국문 초록 (Abstract)

증권형 크라우드펀딩(온라인소액투자중개)은 다수의 투자자로부터 온라인 플랫폼을 통하여 소액 자 금을 모집하는 대체적 자금조달 수단이다. 우리나라는 2015년 ｢자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률｣ 개정을 통하여 동 제도를 도입하였으나, 창업 후 7년 이내 기업으로 한정된 발행인 자격 제한, 경직적 투자한도, 유통시장 부재 등 구조적 한계로 인하여 2019년 이후 시장이 지속적으로 위축되어 왔다. 본 논문은 미국⋅영국⋅일본⋅싱가포르 4개국의 증권형 크라우드펀딩 법제를 발행인 요건, 투자자 한도, 중개업자 규제, 정보공개 의무, 전매제한 및 유통시장, 세제 인센티브 및 정책금융, SPV⋅Nominee 구조의 7개 규제 축을 기준으로 비교⋅분석하였다. 비교 대상국들은 업력에 기초한 발행인 제한을 두 지 아니하면서 결격사유 심사를 통하여 부적격 발행인을 차단하고, 투자자의 소득⋅자산에 연동한 비 율형 투자한도를 설정하며, 대체거래시설(ATS)⋅공인시장운영자(RMO) 등 유통시장 인프라를 구축하 고, SPV⋅Nominee 구조를 통하여 주주관리의 효율성을 제고하며, 조세 인센티브와 정부 공동투자를 통하여 민간 벤처자본을 유인하는 공통적 규제 경향을 보인다. 이러한 분석 결과를 바탕으로, 본 논문 은 ① 발행인 자격 요건의 합리화, ② 투자한도 규제의 재설계, ③ 유통시장 인프라 구축, ④ SPV⋅ Nominee 구조의 도입, ⑤ 세제 및 정책금융 연계, ⑥ 계속공시의무의 합리화, ⑦ 대상 증권의 확대 등 7대 개선방안을 제시하였다. 이들 개선방안은 투자자 보호 장치의 동시적 강화를 전제로 추진되어 야 하며, 이에 상응하는 투자자보호 장치가 마련될 때 시장 활성화와 투자자 보호의 균형이 달성될 수 있을 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Securities-based crowdfunding, which enables companies to raise small amounts of capital from a large number of investors through online platforms, was introduced in Korea in 2016 under the 2015 amendments to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA). However, the market has stagnated due to institutional constraints, including restrictive issuer eligibility requirements, low investment limits, and the absence of a functioning secondary market. Annual successful funding peaked at approximately 205 offerings and KRW 39 billion in 2019, but declined sharply to 95 offerings and KRW 16.5 billion by 2021. The withdrawal of the largest domestic platform from this sector further underscores the market's current vulnerability.
This paper conducts a comparative legal analysis of securities-based crowdfunding regimes in four jurisdictions — the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Singapore — along seven regulatory axes: issuer requirements, investor limits, intermediary regulation, disclosure obligations, resale restrictions and secondary market infrastructure, tax incentives and policy finance, and SPV/Nominee structures. The analysis reveals the following common regulatory tendencies among these jurisdictions: first, they impose no restrictions based on company age while employing bad actor disqualification rules to screen out ineligible issuers; second, they set investment limits proportional to investors’ income and net worth; third, they utilize Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) or Nominee structures to streamline shareholder management; fourth, they establish secondary market infrastructure through Alternative Trading Systems (ATS), Recognised Market Operators (RMO), and private trading platforms; fifth, they provide robust tax incentives and public co-investment programs to attract private venture capital; sixth, they impose time-limited or size-proportionate ongoing disclosure obligations rather than requiring perpetual reporting, with termination triggered by events such as deregistration or falling below a minimum number of shareholders; and seventh, they do not restrict the types of securities eligible for crowdfunding issuance to specific categories, accommodating diverse structures including equity, debt, investment contract securities, and tokenized instruments. In contrast, the Korean system restricts issuers to companies within seven years of incorporation, caps the annual investment limit for retail investors at KRW 10 million, and prohibits resale for six months following issuance, yet lacks effective secondary market infrastructure.
Based on this comparative analysis, this paper proposes seven key reform measures: (i) abolishing the company age restriction and introducing a bad actor disqualification system; (ii) redesigning investment limits based on investor income and assets; (iii) establishing secondary market infrastructure through linkage with over-the-counter platforms for security tokens; (iv) permitting SPV structures to enhance shareholder management efficiency; (v) strengthening tax incentives and policy finance linkages; (vi) rationalizing ongoing disclosure obligations through time-limited, size-proportionate requirements; and (vii) expanding the scope of eligible securities to include non-monetary trust beneficiary certificates and security tokens. Ultimately, these reforms must be balanced with enhanced investor protection mechanisms. By synchronizing regulatory relaxation with corresponding safeguards in the short, medium, and long term, Korea can transform crowdfunding into a vital financing channel for innovative enterprises.