메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이기욱 (동국대학교)
저널정보
한양법학회 한양법학 한양법학 제25권 제4집 통권 제48집
발행연도
2014.11
수록면
137 - 160 (24page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Little attention has been given to the possibility that CDS transactions might be construed as insurance contracts in English law. This article challenges the widespread “Potts opinion”, which states that CDSs are not insurance, because they do not require the protection buyer to sustain a loss or to have an insurable interest in the subject matter. CDSs often do provide protection against loss that the buyer is exposed to; loss indemnity is not a necessary characterisation of an insurance contract; insurable interest does not form part of the definition of insurance, but is an additional requirement of valid insurance; and what matters is the substance not the form of the contract. The situation in the US and Australia is also briefly considered.
It is normally thought that credit default swaps (CDSs) are not insurance contracts, but careful analysis reveals major weaknesses in this position. Whether or not CDSs are insurance is an issue of significant implications. If a court would answer that question in the affirmative, many outstanding CDS contracts might be null and void, and possibly illegal.1 There would also be other implications such as those concerning accounting rules, taxation, reserves regulation and the doctrine of utmost good faith.
This article challenges the well-known “Potts opinion”, which says that CDSs are not insurance in English law. London is a leading centre of CDS contracting activity and a large part of the business is documented under English law. Much of the analysis can be applied to other jurisdictions too, but there are also differences. The article does not discuss the broader question of whether or not CDS contracts should be defined and regulated as insurance by way of specific legislation; nor does it investigate the extent to which the same analysis can be applied to other types of credit derivatives.

목차

Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 포츠의견서와 `손해전보기준`의 생성
Ⅲ. 뉴욕주보험법상 `손해전보기준`의 전개
Ⅳ. 뉴욕주보험법에서의 `손해전보기준`의 재구축
Ⅴ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-300-002822680