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
It is not sensible of a financial holding company to be reluctant to infuse capital to remedy its subsidiaries in unsound financial conditions, on the grounds of corporate separateness and shareholder's limited liability, while controlling the subsidiaries and receiving dividends from their profits. The source of strength doctrine. and the cross-guarantee provision in financial holding company system will ultimately result in contributing to vindication of capital infusion into subsidiary banks. The source of strength doctrine is substantiated through capital infusion into subsidiary banks. The doctrine of source of strength is materialized, denying corporate separateness, through regulation of limited liability, and the cross-guarantee provision may be referred to as what the source of strength doctrine is realized as both horizontally and vertically.
A disparity in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act might emerge, however, for the Act provides only the rights for the holding company to infuse capital into the subsidiaries, but no liability to do the same. But the discrepancy is not grave enough to recognize the liability of capital infusion from the holding company, even though we apply the piercing corporate veil and the regulation of limited liability. Neither is it compatible with the present Korean law system to impose the liability of capital infusion by applying the theory of source of strength. while the holding company could be encouraged to bail out, at its discretion. subsidiaries in unstable financial status. The holding company could be allowed to choose to include its liability of capital infusion into the subsidiaries as one of business purposes in its incorporation articles ; when the liability is included. financial aids are legally imposed on the holding company when its subsidiary bank is at a financial stake, and the holding company will be subject to governmental sanction when it fails to abide by the provision in the articles. No similar theory in the American system was found that can be related to cross-guarantee in the Korean juridical system. Also property rights are likely to be infringed when cross-guarantee is legislated.
The Management Guidelines in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act (Chapter 50, Section 2) can be best argued as what the doctrine of source of strength can be extracted from or based upon, but it leaves much to be desired to interpret the Guidelines as a definite ground from which the doctrine has been derived. Also Prompt Corrective Action, or the provision regarding supervision on the holding company (Chapter 36 through 38 of the Act), do not define such an express measure that orders the holding company to infuse capital into subsidiaries that do not meet requirements in capital adequacy ratio, which, along with Chapter 10 of Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, hardly serves a solid basis of the source of strength doctrine.
As of April. 2009, when the Korean government pours public funds to help domestic banks improve their capital adequacy ratio, the management crisis should be handled by the holding company itself, not letting its subsidiary banks be rescued by means of social expense costs. The Korean financial system should first head for a system in which the financial holding company can manage independently and account accordingly. Then the source of strength doctrine and the cross-guarantee provision(system) should be introduced later in the future into the Korean judicial system, and legislation of such systems to impose on or to protect the financial holding company is not yet desirable.
A disparity in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act might emerge, however, for the Act provides only the rights for the holding company to infuse capital into the subsidiaries, but no liability to do the same. But the discrepancy is not grave enough to recognize the liability of capital infusion from the holding company, even though we apply the piercing corporate veil and the regulation of limited liability. Neither is it compatible with the present Korean law system to impose the liability of capital infusion by applying the theory of source of strength. while the holding company could be encouraged to bail out, at its discretion. subsidiaries in unstable financial status. The holding company could be allowed to choose to include its liability of capital infusion into the subsidiaries as one of business purposes in its incorporation articles ; when the liability is included. financial aids are legally imposed on the holding company when its subsidiary bank is at a financial stake, and the holding company will be subject to governmental sanction when it fails to abide by the provision in the articles. No similar theory in the American system was found that can be related to cross-guarantee in the Korean juridical system. Also property rights are likely to be infringed when cross-guarantee is legislated.
The Management Guidelines in Korean Financial Holding Companies Act (Chapter 50, Section 2) can be best argued as what the doctrine of source of strength can be extracted from or based upon, but it leaves much to be desired to interpret the Guidelines as a definite ground from which the doctrine has been derived. Also Prompt Corrective Action, or the provision regarding supervision on the holding company (Chapter 36 through 38 of the Act), do not define such an express measure that orders the holding company to infuse capital into subsidiaries that do not meet requirements in capital adequacy ratio, which, along with Chapter 10 of Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, hardly serves a solid basis of the source of strength doctrine.
As of April. 2009, when the Korean government pours public funds to help domestic banks improve their capital adequacy ratio, the management crisis should be handled by the holding company itself, not letting its subsidiary banks be rescued by means of social expense costs. The Korean financial system should first head for a system in which the financial holding company can manage independently and account accordingly. Then the source of strength doctrine and the cross-guarantee provision(system) should be introduced later in the future into the Korean judicial system, and legislation of such systems to impose on or to protect the financial holding company is not yet desirable.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 자회사 은행에 대한 자본확충의 이론적 근거
Ⅲ. 현행법상 자회사은행에 대한 자본확충 관련 규정
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
자은행의 경영부실과 은행지주회사의 책임
기업법연구
2006 .03
-
금융지주회사제도의 문제점과 개선방안
기업법연구
2013 .03
-
한국 금융지주회사법상 비은행지주회사에 대한 비교법적 연구 : 미국법제를 중심으로
비교사법
2011 .06
-
지주회사에서 주주의 법적 이익보호와 이사의 책임문제
원광법학
2009 .01
-
일본 보험지주회사 입법 그리고 한국 보험지주회사론
비교사법
2009 .06
-
2008년 10월 금융지주회사법 개정안의 자회사
법학연구
2008 .12
-
보험지주회사 도입논의를 위한 미국법제 연구
기업법연구
2009 .06
-
지주회사의 지휘권과 책임
기업법연구
2007 .12
-
금융지주회사와 기업지배구조에 관한 법적 고찰
비교사법
2010 .06
-
持株會社의 經營支配構造에 관한 改善方案
기업법연구
2013 .12
-
중국 금융지주회사 감독 법제에 관한 연구
동북아법연구
2011 .01
-
금융지주회사 설립전후 투자자 반응
대한경영학회지
2010 .02
-
기술지주회사의 도입과 과세문제
법과 정책연구
2009 .01
-
현행의 금융지주회사제도에 관한 소고
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
보험지주회사 규제에 관한 소고
중앙법학
2009 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-018481750