CBDC의 사법적 성질 검토 -계좌형과 토큰형을 중심으로-

In 2018, after the Bank for International Settlements(BIS) divided CBDC into account-based and token-based, institutions developing and researching CBDC also categorized CBDC into account-based and token- based. However, the problem is that each institution has a slightly different classification standard for CBDC. While there are countries that have accepted the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)'s criteria for CBDC classification, there are countries that classify CBDC based on the value transfer method, such as the United Kingdom and Japan. In the case of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Bank of Korea, the technical characteristics of CBDC under design are listed, but CBDC is not divided into account-based and token-based. The absence of a unified concept of account-based and token-based can cause confusion in communication between researchers about CBDC. This confusion is first caused by the fact that the terms ‘account’ and ‘token’ have various meanings. In other words, when the terms ‘account’ and ‘token’ used to explain CBDC models, each person may have a different understanding of CBDC. Also, as mentioned earlier, the same terms are used even though account-based and token-based are defined differently by institution. The biggest problem is that if CBDC is divided into account-based and token-based, a mixed model that cannot be distinguished between the two types can be designed. Therefore, I presented criteria for categorizing desirable CBDC types that do not cause confusion in the communication of CBDC research, and reviewed how the legal nature of CBDC would change when CBDC were classified according to this standard. When CBDC are classified according to whether identity authentication and private keys are used, such as the Bank for International Settlements(BIS), a problem arises that CBDC designs that use both identity authentication and private keys are possible. Therefore, it is desirable to classify CBDC as ‘value transfer method’. In this case, CBDC is divided into a method of transferring by increasing or decreasing the balance(balance increase/decrease type) and a method of transferring by creating/destroying data(data creation/destroying type). In order to review the legal nature of CBDC, it is necessary to examine what kind of legal relationship between individual and financial institution. First, in a balance increasing/decreasing type CBDC that allows only identity authentication and does not use a private key, an individual must transfer CBDC to a financial institution and instruct the financial institution to transfer CBDC. After verifying the individual's identity, the financial institution carries out the individual's instructions. This type of CBDC is deposit and is subject to the regulation which applies to deposit. On the other hand, CBDC, in which private keys and verifying identity are used, regardless of the transfer method, individuals have exclusive rights to CBDC without the involvement of financial institutions. Therefore, it is necessary to check whether the property right regulation applies to this type of CBDC. Since, the majority of Korean academia have concluded that data cannot be a ‘thing’ under civil law, legislation is needed to apply property rights to this type of CBDC.