공정거래법상 채무보증 규제의 한계 분석과 대안의 모색

Debt guarantee regulation under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(hereinafter ‘MRFTA’) has been developed while increasing institutional integrity over the past 30 years. At first glance, however, this reality can be seen as a positive meaning that the possibility of illegal acts is minimized as a result of this system being firmly established as a market rule, while companies belonging to large conglomerates are able to meet the demand for debt guarantee through methods other than those subject to regulation. It may be to prove that you are doing it. In fact, financial techniques that are difficult to see as debt guarantees under current laws and regulations are emerging, even though they perform similar functions to debt guarantees from an economic point of view. A representative example of this is a replenishment agreement between companies and a Total Return Swap (TRS) transaction. This article from the awareness that the regulation of debt guarantee under the Fair Trade Act does not adequately cover the reality, which may lead to a gap or inconsistency in regulations. Replenishment agreements and TRS debt guarantee functions were analyzed. Based on this, we tried to identify the limitations of the debt guarantee regulation among affiliates under the current law, and to find three alternatives to overcome them, and to derive the best one among them.