지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Since the early 1980s, Korea has strictly adopted the separation policy between banking and commerce. The strongest tool of realizing this policy was the bank ownership regulation in the Banking Act of Korea. That is, one provision under the Banking Act of Korea restricted one Korean shareholder to hold no more than 4 percent of total voting stocks of a commercial bank. Since the financial turmoil in 1997, however, the provision has been gradually amended by financial regulators themselves because it is a kind of entry barrier regulation which is out of date. After foreigners being able to acquire more than 33 percent of total voting stocks subject to a prior approval by the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), all the Koreans except chaebol are allowed to own the same amounts of voting stocks on an equal basis with foreigners.
In the meantime, some Korean scholars have identified that the separation policy between banking and commerce does not always come with the bank ownership regulation, because the U.S. based on the same policy does not have the bank ownership provision either in its codes or regulations. Now, in addition, deregulation trend in the financial sector is the main stream all around the world, thereby focusing on the repeal of unnecessary and improper provisions under the financial law. Almost all of entry barriers are the most representative example of these provisions. Thus, the current regulation against chaebol should be re-examined deeply considering all these situations because it is unreasonable and obsolete.
This paper examines deeply article 15 through article 16-3 of the Banking Act of Korea which are directly related to the bank ownership regulation. Reporting duty to the FSC voluntarily by same person is very important because financial regulators themselves are not expected to know all the facts relating to the minor change of the bank share-holdings. Regarding this duty, harmonization with the Securities Exchange Act is also a significant issue because the relevant provision of the Banking Act of Korea is not consistent with the Securities Exchange Act. Without wise adjustment between both Acts, duplicate and burdensome regulations may deter the development of the Korean financial industry. The rationale determining chaebol should be more correct and advanced. Otherwise, no Koreans may compete with foreigners in the context of bank share-holdings. In this case, of course, increased concentration and monopolization in banking should be re-examined furthermore. This paper discusses all these issues in detail from the more revolutionary perspective.
In the meantime, some Korean scholars have identified that the separation policy between banking and commerce does not always come with the bank ownership regulation, because the U.S. based on the same policy does not have the bank ownership provision either in its codes or regulations. Now, in addition, deregulation trend in the financial sector is the main stream all around the world, thereby focusing on the repeal of unnecessary and improper provisions under the financial law. Almost all of entry barriers are the most representative example of these provisions. Thus, the current regulation against chaebol should be re-examined deeply considering all these situations because it is unreasonable and obsolete.
This paper examines deeply article 15 through article 16-3 of the Banking Act of Korea which are directly related to the bank ownership regulation. Reporting duty to the FSC voluntarily by same person is very important because financial regulators themselves are not expected to know all the facts relating to the minor change of the bank share-holdings. Regarding this duty, harmonization with the Securities Exchange Act is also a significant issue because the relevant provision of the Banking Act of Korea is not consistent with the Securities Exchange Act. Without wise adjustment between both Acts, duplicate and burdensome regulations may deter the development of the Korean financial industry. The rationale determining chaebol should be more correct and advanced. Otherwise, no Koreans may compete with foreigners in the context of bank share-holdings. In this case, of course, increased concentration and monopolization in banking should be re-examined furthermore. This paper discusses all these issues in detail from the more revolutionary perspective.
목차
Ⅰ. 처음에
Ⅱ. 同一人의 株式保有制限
Ⅲ. 非金融主力者의 株式保有制限
Ⅳ. 맺는 말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (22)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
은행주식의 보유한도에 대한 조문별 검토
법학논총
2006 .02
-
은산분리정책에 대한 금융법적 검토
한양법학
2008 .06
-
금융 선진화의 기반 구축을 위한 은행법상 몇 가지 규제의 개선 방안
기업법연구
2006 .06
-
은행의 업무규제 분석 및 미국법을 모델로 한 향후 개정방향
증권법연구
2012 .05
-
금융위기 이후 주요국의 투자은행업무 규제동향과 우리나라에서의 시사점
비교사법
2011 .06
-
美國의 預金金融機關에 대한 監督過程과 制裁手段에 관한 硏究
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
중국의 은행업규제와 그 시사점에 관한 연구
은행법연구
2019 .01
-
영국의 금융개혁과 그 시사점
비교사법
2009 .09
-
은행법상 은산분리 법제와 정책에 관한 검토
동아법학
2014 .11
-
독일 은행업규제와 그 시사점
중앙법학
2015 .03
-
중국 외자은행에 관한 법제 고찰
중국법연구
2011 .01
-
E-Finance Development in Korea
Korea and the World Economy
2006 .11
-
Analysis on the Efficiency and Related Factors of Chinese Banking
한국산업경제학회 정기학술발표대회 초록집
2013 .11
-
금융지주회사와 보험지주회사 규율방식의 분리에 관한 검토
경영법률
2008 .01
-
금융규제에 대한 법정책학적 고찰
법과 정책연구
2014 .01
-
FDICIA and Risk Shifting in the Banking Industry
Asian International Studies Review
2006 .01
-
[Session P] 인터넷뱅킹 도입에 영향을 미치는 요인
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
2001 .04
-
인터넷전문은행 도입에 관한 소고 : 법적 쟁점을 중심으로
중앙법학
2016 .09
-
일본 은행법상의 「銀行代理業制度」검토 및 시사점
동북아법연구
2009 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015562029