한국 가상자산거래소의 발전방안에 관한 법적 연구 — 가상자산이용자보호법과 MiCA의 비교하에 —

This article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the *Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users* of the Republic of Korea and the European Union’s *Markets in Crypto-Assets* (MiCA) Regulation, with a view to establishing a normative and institutional foundation conducive to the sound development of domestic virtual asset exchanges. Korean virtual asset exchanges typically operate through a vertically integrated structure, encompassing the issuance, listing evaluation, brokerage, custody, and management of virtual assets. This structural concentration of functions exacerbates information asymmetries and heightens the risk of asset misappropriation and unfair trading practices. Although the *Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users* purports to enhance user protection and ensure market transparency, it remains deficient in several respects. Notable shortcomings include the absence of effective safeguards against the functional concentration of exchanges, the merely formalistic implementation of asset segregation obligations, and the limited scope and enforceability of unfair trading regulations. Against this backdrop, this article proposes a series of regulatory reforms: (1) the functional unbundling of issuance, listing evaluation, and custody, accompanied by a prohibition on cross- function operations; (2) the mandatory entrustment of user assets to independent third-party custodians and the substantive enforcement of segregation duties; (3) the enhancement of ex ante internal control mechanisms and real-time surveillance of suspicious transactions; (4) the codification of listing and delisting procedures, including the delegation of supervisory powers to competent authorities; and (5) the institutionalization of preventive, punitive, and remedial measures with respect to unfair trading practices. The examination of the MiCA framework yields several regulatory elements of potential relevance to the Korean legal context. Provisions mandating white paper disclosures, allocating responsibility for listing assessments, and empowering supervisory authorities to delist assets and conduct ongoing market oversight offer particularly salient normative guidance. Such elements may inform the design of a more coherent and enforceable domestic regulatory regime. It is submitted that the insights derived from this comparative inquiry may contribute meaningfully to the development of a future- oriented legal framework for virtual asset markets—one that balances innovation with integrity and fosters the dual objectives of market soundness and investor protection.