论中国法下金融机构违反投资者适当性义务的赔偿依据 = Analysis on the Underlying Legal Basis Adopted by the Investors to Claim Compensation against the Financial Institutions due to Its Violation of OELE in the Context of PRC Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The concept of the “obligation of ensuring investor eligibility” (“OELE”) was put forward by Securities Law of the People's Republic of China (2019 Revision) (“Securities Law”). However, in the case of the violation of the OELE by the financial institution (“Scenario”), there is still a dispute over the underlying legal principle/basis on which the investor could rely to request such financial institution to compensate the investor. The “liability for contracting fault”(“LCF”)is the underlying legal principle adopted by the PRC Supreme People’s Court to apply to the cases similar to the Scenario. The author believes that investors may adopt LCF as the main legal basis and adopt the statutory liabilty related to OELE provided in the the departmental regulations and judicial documents of PRC Supreme Court as the supplementary legal basis to claim compensation against various financial institutions, and only in the event of violation of OELE by scurities companies investors may adopt the security tort liability specified in Article 88 of the Securities Law as the legal basis to claim against securities companies. Meanwhile, the author advises that: since the principle of LCF is only applied to the event where an contract is unformed, invalid or be revoked, to avoid the contractual liability imposed by the contract executed together by the investor and the financial institutions under the Scenario, it is better for such investor to claim the avoidance of the contract in accordance with Article 54 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China，or Article 151 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

2019年修订的中国《证券法》引入了“适当性义务”. 但是，金融机构违 反适当性义务时，普通投资者对金融机构索赔的法理依据尚有争议. 针对 此类案件，缔约过失责任（先合同义务）是中国最高法院倾向支持的观 点. 笔者认为，投资者主张金融机构违反适当性义务时，应以缔约过失责 任为主要根据，以部门规章和中国最高法院的司法文件规定的适当性义 务条款为辅助依据；仅在证券公司违反适当性义务时以《证券法》第88 条的证券侵权责任为根据要求赔偿. 这是因为，缔约过失责任可以广泛适 用于投资者针对各类金融机构的索赔，而证券法下的适当性义务赔偿主 体仅限于证券公司. 此外，笔者建议，由于缔约过失责任仅存在于合同未 成立、无效或被撤销时，投资者在主张金融机构的缔约过失责任时，应 根据《合同法》第54条或《民法总则》第151条，请求撤销与金融机构之 间的合同，借此解决缔约过失责任下的合同效力问题.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 王冷然, "适当性原则与私法秩序" 信山社 2010
• 2 朱锦清, "证券法学" 北京大学出版社 2019
• 3 陈洁, "证券公司违反投资者适当性原则的民事责任" 2012
• 4 冯果, "证券侵权民事赔偿标准确立的内在机理与体系建构" (2) : 2018
• 5 神崎克郎, "证券交易规制研究" 有斐阁 1968
• 6 朱庆育, "民法总论" 北京大学出版社 2016
• 7 龙卫球, "民法总论" 中国法制出版社 2002
• 8 王利明, "民法" 中国人民大学出版社 2018
• 9 胡伟, "投资者适当性制度民事责任探析" (2) : 2013
• 10 武汉大学课题组, "投资者保护法律制度完善研究" 10 : 2014
• 11 王利明, "关于完善中国证券侵权民事责任制度的几点思考" 6 : 2012