그리스의 은행업규제와 그 시사점에 관한 연구

Recently so many countries are experiencing difficulties in financial crisis originated from the United States and the EU. As is generally known, the EU was infected from the United States. Especially PIIGS expose themselves to state defaults. Greece is the core of financial turbulence and the worst because Germany and France are the two largest creditors in Greece. If Greece is in insolvency, the two largest creditors cannot get their money from her. The EU’s entire economy will be about to be collapsed. The author examines the Greek financial regulation on the banking activities and there are several differences as follows:(1) While the Greek legal system does not treat differently an authorization for doing business on the electronic money in accordance with the types of financial companies, there is a difference between banking and other financial businesses under the Korean legal system on the electronic money. In other words, bank companies needs to get an authorization from the Korean financial regulator, but other financial companies have to receive a license from it. Because such a different authorization between bank companies and other financial companies on electronic money is potential to impair the efficiency of the regulatory supervision, it needs to be reviewed. (2) The minimum capital requirement of the banking companies under the Korean legal system ranges from US $ 22,000,000 to US $ 87,000,000. However, the minimum capital requirement of the banking companies in Greece ranges from US $ 7,000,000 to US $ 25,000,000. The former is far more than the latter on the minimum capital requirements for the banking companies. In this sense, the Korean legislation needs to be examined as the international trend on the minimum capital requirement for banking business. (3) There is a preliminary license for banking business under the Korean legal system. But there is not in Greece. Because such a preliminary license for banking business is an overlapped regulation against banking companies, the current preliminary license for banking in Korea needs to be examined in the future. (4) There is the investment limit in accordance with investors. However, the Greek legal system does not have such investment limit in accordance with investors and there exists just the investment limit regardless of investors. Because the Korean legal system has concreteness on the investment limit as compared with the Greek legal system, the former is better than the latter. (5) While the limit of holding bank companies’ shares ranges from 4% to 33% of total shares with voting rights in accordance with shareholders under the Korean legal system, such limit under the Greek legal system just ranges from 4% to 50% of total shares with voting rights regardless of shareholders. Because Korea is currently working with the EU under the FTA, however, the Korean limit in accordance with shareholders needs to be reviewed. (6) There is the prompt corrective action under the Korean legal system, but is not under the Greek legal system. Because the business type for financial companies is united in several financial companies under one roof, the financial regulation needs to be also linked with the entire group under one roof. However, the suspension of the prompt corrective action under the Korean legal system is potential to impair the quickness of such action. In this sense, such action needs to be examined in order to guarantee the efficiency of the prompt corrective action. (7) While one regulator controls all kinds of financial companies under the Korean legal system, several regulators oversight financial companies in accordance with their financial activities. Because the type of one regulator (mega regulator) can quickly take measures in the situation, the Korean legal system is better than the Greek legal system.