금융감독체계 개편을 위한 법적 제언

Where a financial market exists, there is a corresponding need for financial supervision. This is because the presence of diverse participants in the financial market requires securing the transparency and fairness of the market as a fundamental prerequisite. In South Korea, where there is a financial market, financial supervision also exists, regulated by the Act on the Establishment of the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "FSC Establishment Act"). The Financial Services Commission (FSC) has the authority to establish both financial industry policies and supervisory policies, while the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), which is under the FSC, carries out supervisory enforcement. This has led to a conflict of interest between policy-making and supervision, distorting the order of the financial market. Since issues started arising with the financial supervisory system, there has been increasing demand for its reform. The calls for reform stem from the mixing of financial policies and supervision, structural problems within the financial bureaucracy, government-led finance, and the lack of independence of financial supervision. Between 1998 and 1999, during the IMF crisis, the harmful effects of government-led finance in South Korea were pointed out, leading to the restructuring of the financial supervisory system, which inaugurated the era of an integrated financial supervisory organization. The new integrated supervisory body was the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), which served as the decision-making body, and the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), which carried out the supervision. The chairs of the FSC and the FSS were held concurrently. At that time, administrative functions were supported by a civil servant organization, creating a unified supervisory system. However, over time, due to the continued expansion of the civil servant organization under the FSS, a de facto dual supervisory system was established, which led to the creation of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) as the higher organization. The main goals at that time were to modernize the financial industry and increase the accountability of financial administration. To achieve this, the FSC Establishment Act was enacted in 2008, and the Government Organization Act was amended, transitioning fully to the current dual structure of the FSC and the FSS. Since then, the FSC has handled both financial policies and supervisory policies, while the FSS, under the FSC, has carried out supervision. However, during this process, a contradiction was identified in the conflicting roles of the FSC: on one hand, 'encouraging (or promoting)' in its policy-making role, and on the other, 'suppressing' in its supervisory role. Examples of adverse effects include the 2011 savings bank crisis, the 2013 Dong-yang crisis, the 2016 KIKO crisis, and the 2019-2020 private equity fund crisis. It has now become urgent to reform the financial supervisory system. From the perspective of advancing the financial market and improving the efficiency of supervision, the FSC should be abolished due to its role in creating adverse effects from the integration of financial industry policies and supervisory policies. Instead, financial industry policy should be transferred to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF). The FSS should focus on financial supervisory policies and their enforcement, ensuring the macroeconomic soundness of a transparent and fair financial market, and handling financial institution licensing. Furthermore, the Financial Consumer Protection Department, currently under the FSS, should be newly transitioned into the Financial Consumer Protection Agency as an independent organization, which would be responsible for overseeing business activities and financial consumer protection in accordance with the Financial Consumer Protection Act. The FSS and the Financial Consumer Protection Agency should be established as non-capital special corporations. To achieve this, the FSC Establishment Act and the Government Organization Act should be amended.