개인채무자보호법(안)의 문제점 - 제안이유와 총칙을 중심으로 -

The 「Act on the Management of Personal Financial Bonds and the Protection of Personal Financial Debtor」 (hereinafter referred to as “enactment bill”) is likely to be passed at the last regular session of the 21st National Assembly. Originally, in the National Assembly, the legislation submitted by the government on December 14, 2022, was pending at the Political Affairs Committee without any review. The legislative purpose of the legislation was ambiguous, and the content of the controversial provisions was not conceptually politicized and lacked specific grounds. In addition, despite various laws for debt adjustment and financial consumer protection, it was expected to be abolished with the end of the 21st National Assembly due to excessive legislation that lacked regulatory impact assessment, such as an increase in regulatory costs. Nevertheless, the situation has changed dramatically with the introduction of a legislative bill that is very similar to the government's proposal. Legislation proposed by the government and legislation proposed by lawmakers without loans can be proposed if more than 10 lawmakers agree. Unlike government proposals, legislation by lawmakers can be omitted, so it is often done at the request of the government. However, the enactment contains a number of content that severely restricts property rights and freedom of business of creditor financial companies or lacks legal validity. In addition, it can be seen that the legislation does not provide objective arguments and valid reasons from the legislative purpose, and that the legislation that should have logical consistency rather contains “error of black and white logic” and “error of arbitrary finance.” It is also unconstitutional due to excessive overlapping and over-legislation that produce unpolitical concepts, scope of application, and excessive regulatory costs. Above all, at a time when private finance should be revitalized due to the economic downturn, the legislation is likely to shrink institutional finance for vulnerable independence, along with lower maximum interest rate regulations during the interest rate hike. This study will examine the validity of the socio-economic background in the process of enacting the Personal Debt Difference Protection Act and then examine the problems of the reasons for enactment and legislative objectives (Article 1) proposed in the government (II). Next, we will look at the main concepts of the legislation and the problems of the scope of application (Article 3). In light of the seriousness of the problem, I would like to conclude the article by raising the need for a full review of the bill (IV). However, with respect to the individual issue provisions of the legislation, the provisions on the loss of profits due to the deadline (Articles 6 and 7), the provisions on the exemption of future interest bonds (Articles 9), and the provisions on the extinctive prescription (Articles 14, 15, and 16) will be discussed separately as soon as the final draft is confirmed by the National Assembly.