금융투자업자 등 금융회사가 일방 당사자로서 타방 당사자인 대주주, 계열회사와 같이 특수 이해관계가 있는 자와 행하는 거래는 비용적 측면에서의 유리함과 상생이라는 목적을 위해 빈번하게 이루어지고 있다. 이러한 행태의 모든 거래에 대해 편견을 가지고 접근해서는 안되겠지만, 지금까지 우리가 경험한 것은 부실 계열회사의 퇴출 방지를 위한 무리한 지원, 지배력 확장·승계를 위한 편법적 거래, 대주주의 사금고로 전락하는 금융 계열회사의 자금 지원 등 부정적인 단면이 많았다. 이에 자본시장법을 비록한 금융관련법률은 대주주 등과의 거래를 제한하는 규제를 두어 이와 같은 부작용을 예방하기 위한 차단장치를 마련·운용하고 있다. 자본시장법의 ‘대주주 신용공여 금지 규제’ 관련하여 2017년에는 주목할 만한 대법원 판례와 이를 반영한 금융감독당국의 제재부과 처분이 있었다. 2017년 대법원 판례는 금융감독당국이 2015년 A투자증권㈜에 부과한 제재처분과 관련이 있는 것으로, 계열회사에 자금이 지원되는 것을 알면서도 월세 임대계약을 전세계약으로 전환해주어 거액의 보증금이 계열회사에 전달되도록 한 행위와 계열회사 발행 CP를 매입하도록 하여 매입금액이 또 다른 계열회사에 전달되로도록 한 행위에 대해 판단을 하였다. 전자의 행위와 관련해서는 자본시장법에서 금지하는 신용공여에 해당한다고 판단한 반면, 후자의 행위와 관련해서는 자본시장법에서 예외적으로 허용하는 자기자본 8% 범위 내에서 특수관계인이 발행하는 약속어음 매입·소유에 해당한다고 판단하였다. 양 자의 행위는 전체적인 관점에서 모두 계열회사를 지원하는 행위임에도 법원은 이에 대해 달리 판단하였는데, 아마도 그 판단의 전제에는 CP 매입은 금융투자업자의 고유 업무인 투자매매업적 성격이 있으므로 이에 대해서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 자기자본의 8% 이내이면 허용하겠다는 입장이 내재되어 있는 것으로 보인다. 대법원 판례에 앞서 금융감독당국은 양 행위 모두 법 위반으로 보아 제재처분을 했는데, 이는 행정기관에 기대되는 역할인 금융투자업자에 대한 계도, 금융투자시장에의 경고라는 정책적 고려가 있었던 것으로 결과적으로 법원의 판단과 상이하다고 해서 바람직하지 못했다는 평가는 적절하지 아니하다. 2017년 금융감독원의 제재부과 처분은 B증권㈜이 취득한 계열회사의 주식을 매각하기 위해 SPC가 발행한 ABCP에 어음보증약정을 한 행위와 본인 및 계열회사가 공동으로 소유한 사옥을 팔기 위해 매입자 부동산펀드에 후순위 대출을 제공한 행위에 대해 자본시장법 위반으로 판단한 사례이다. 이 경우도 물론 첫 번째 사례와 마찬가지로 전체적인 관점에서는 직접적이든 간접적이든 계열회사를 지원하는 행위로 볼 여지는 있고, 이에 금융감독당국은 제재를 부과하였는데, 앞서 언급한 대법원 판례를 고려할 때 적절한 판단이었는지는 의문이다. 왜냐하면 전자의 행위와 관련해서는 자기자본의 8% 이내에서 주식취득이 허용된 이상, 그 이후 어음보증약정은 동일한 위험을 부담한 것이 불과할 뿐이어서 이를 두고 다시 대주주에 대한 신용공여행위라고 평가할 수 있을지 의문이기 때문이다. 또한 후자의 행위와 관련해서도 후순위 대출로 금융투자업자는 투자행위를 한 것이라고 볼 것이고 이것이 우회적으로 대주주에 대한 신용공여로까지 연결된다고 보기는 어렵다. 금융감독당국의 입장도 이해 못할 바는 아니나, 대주주와 관련된 행위가 문제가 있는 경우가 대부분이었으므로 가급적 규제해야 한다는 시각에서 접근하다 보면 대주주와의 거래가 건전하고 필요함에도 무조건적으로 금지되고 이로 인해 금융투자업자로 하여금 불필요한 비용을 부담하게 하여 소비자에게까지 부정적인 영향을 미치는 결과를 초래되게 하는 것은 규제자로서의 바람직한 역할 수행은 아니라고 할 것이다. 따라서 본 영역에 대한 심도있는 논의와 연구를 통해 발전이 필요할 것이고 금융감독당국도 엄정한 법 집행과 감독대상 계도, 소비자 보호라는 목적을 달성하기 위해 균형적인 시각을 견지해야할 것이다.
Financial Institutes tend to trade their own assets including goods and services with the special related persons such as the controlling shareholders or the affiliated companies in order to save the transaction cost or to keep the win-win relationship. Even though we don't have to have an excessive prejudice against this kind of internal transactions, it is necessary that the financial laws including the Financial Services and Markets Act(FSMA) regulate the transaction between the financial institute and its controlling shareholders or its special related persons. We have already experienced several cases of the financial institute's wrongful financial support for its controlling shareholders or the affiliated companies. The final purpose of the unreasonable financial support was to prevent the financially unsound affiliates from being kicked out or to fulfill the mission that the extention or the succession of the controlling shareholder's power should be successfully achieved. As a result, the financial institute fell so low as to become a private safe. This paper would like to deal with some special cases on the regulation restricting the internal transaction between the financial investment company and its controlling shareholders or its special related persons. In this paper, 4 cases are introduced and estimated in the aspect of reasonable regulation. As for 2 cases of A financial investment company, while the financial supervisory authorities had decided that both of cases should apply to the illegal credit offering to its controlling shareholders, Supreme Court did judgement that one case could apply to the illegal but the other case could not. As for the other 2 cases of B financial investment company, the financial supervisory authorities decided that those 2 cases should apply to the illegal credit offering prohibited under the FSMA and there is no judgement of court concerning those 2 cases yet. In 2017 concerning the regulation under FSMA on the financial investment company's credit offering to its controlling shareholders or its related persons, there are a notable judicial judgement of Supreme Court and some subsequent administrative measures of the financial supervisory authorities The judgement of Supreme Court in 2017 is relating with the administrative measures on the financial investment company(A) which was conducted by the financial supervisory authorities in 2015. A granted its special related person a large amount of security deposit for its building lease contract. Before this contract, they had kept on a monthly based rent payment contract by which A didn't need to grant the special related person a large amount of security deposit all at once. A to be sanctioned had granted its special related person a large amount of security deposit based on the leasing contract, being aware that the deposit would be transferred as an aid funding for its controlling shareholders or its affiliates. In order to fulfill this mission, the both of A and its controlling shareholders had converted the monthly based rent contract not requiring any other large amount of money into the leasing contract requiring a large amount of money all at once. And what's more, A had bought the commercial paper issued by an affiliate and subsequently let those money be transferred to the other affiliates. Supreme Court did judgement that it is an illegal credit offering prohibited by FSMA for A to grant its controlling shareholders a large amount of secruity deposit all at once by converting the monthly based rent contract into the leasing contract. At the same time, Supreme Court decided that it is not an illegal credit offering for A to buy its affiliates' CP(Commercial Paper) because FSMA, within 8% of the financial investment company's equity capital, exceptionally allows the financial investment company to buy or own the securities(including commercial paper) issued by the special related persons. Both cases above mentioned are very similar in the aspect of internal transaction between a financial investment company and its controlling shareholders, however, Supreme Court concluded each case differently. Supreme Court seems to imply that buying CP is a kind of financial investment business itself and accordingly the financial investment company is allowed to buy or own the securities including CP if the total amount doesn't exceed 8% of the financial investment company's equity capital Before the judgement of Supreme Court, the financial supervisory authorities treated the both cases above mentioned as illegal credit offering for the special related person of the financial investment company. Even though the judgement of Supreme Court is partially inconsistent with the financial supervisory authorities, it should be estimated as valuable that the administration agency is supposed to raise legal issues against some legally gray zone. Next 2 cases occurred in the year of 2017. The financial supervisory authorities sanctioned a financial investment company(B) by reason of breaching FSMA which prohibits the financial investment company from credit offering to the controlling shareholders or its special related persons. B had acquired the shares of its affiliate and made a warranty contract on ABCP(Asset Backed Commercial Paper) which an SPC(Special Purpose Company) had issued. The SPC had been set up for liquidating the shares of ship investment company that B had acquired before. While the judgement of the financial supervisory authorities can be estimated as meaningful because B was seemed to directly or indirectly support some financial aid for its controlling shareholders or its affiliates, however, in consideration of Supreme court precedents it may be asked whether the measures taken by the financial supervisory authorities were proper or not. Once B is allowed to own the securities issued by its controlling shareholders or its affiliates within 8% of the amount of its equity capital, it should be comprehended that B may make an contract to guarantee the payment for those securities. Therefore, making a guarantee on the securities that B already owns is not a new credit offering for its controlling shareholders or its affiliates. Another case of 2017 studied in this paper is related to the subordinated loan which was conducted for the real estate fund by B. All these schemes were designed for liquidating an office building which B and its affiliates owned jointly. B bought some part of ABL(Asset Backed Loan) which was conducted for selling that office building successfully. The financial supervisory authorities also decided that this kind of transaction between B and the real estate fund should apply to a breach of FSMA. Nevertheless, it may be comprehended that B made a new investment through acquiring some part(tranche) of ABL and it is hard to say that its investment is, an direct or indirect credit offering for its controlling shareholders. The credit offering of the financial institute to its special related persons is never good practice and it should be strictly prohibited or regulated in the financial laws. Be that as it may, unconditional prohibition without regard to the characteristics of the financial business is definitely not a desirable approach to solve the problem. Obsessed with the prohibition of the transaction between the financial institute and its controlling shareholders, the financial supervisor authorities may increase the strength of regulation which inevitably result in the increase of cost, which has a negative effect on the financial consumer's interest. To summarize, an inappropriate regulation causes unnecessary costs and the financial supervisory authorities should keep it in mind, trying to hold a balanced view of two sides of regulation. Hopefully, further study in this field will help this kind of regulation to play a proper role, especially in FSMA.
