TRF계약과 KIKO계약의 차이점에 관한 연구

The Korean Supreme Court unanimously ruled the KIKO cases in favor of the defendants who are several banks in Korea. Afterwards, several defendants who had other OTC derivatives contract than KIKO, have insisted that their contract was KIKO, even though the name and the real contents were different. TRF(Target Redemption Forward) contract is the one of them. The main purpose of this paper is to prove that TRF contract has many differences compared to KIKO contract. In order to justify those, this paper scrutinizes several aspects of differences between KIKO and TRF in terms of structure and hedge function etc. Although, TRF contract and KIKO contract are the same in terms of OTC derivatives and 1 : 2 structured currency options, they are not identical contract in terms of several aspects. First, TRF has all months cancel clause whereas KIKO has each month cancel clause. Second, in terms of profit calculation, TRF uses one side sum, whereas KIKO uses both side sum. Third, TRF adopted variable strike price whereas KIKO adopted constant strike price. Fourth, TRF has redemption clause whereas KIKO has KO clause. In terms of triggering power of cancelling the contract, there are big differences. Sixth, TRF has the clause which triggers over hedge position, whereas KIKO has not. Therefore, in conclusion, this paper justifies each of those contract must not be regarded as the same one, in order to keep