베일인(bail-in, 채권자 손실분담제도)의 국내 도입 방안 연구

If we discuss the concept of “bail-in,” the flow of the discussion would naturally follow this order: ① the necessity of its introduction ② the connection with the so-called “rapid resolution system” currently being discussed by financial authorities ③ constitutional design options ④ the scope of applicable claims ⑤ optimization strategies. Considering the compliance with international standards and the financial and political difficulties associated with bail-outs, the introduction of bail-ins can be seen as necessary. Although bail-in and rapid resolution are conceptually separate systems and a bail-in does not necessarily need to be linked to it, it would be desirable to connect them if it helps in the legislative process for bail-ins. Regarding constitutional design options, if the No Creditor Worse Off than in Liquidation (NCWOL) principle is upheld, a constitutional design for bail-ins can be considered feasible. The scope of applicable claims should ideally exclude deposit claims to facilitate the smooth introduction of bail-ins, while including corporate bonds. Lastly, to optimize bail-ins, it is essential that they are applied before bail-outs, and complementary measures should be taken, such as ensuring an adequate issuance of corporate bonds suitable for use in bail-ins.