상법 개혁: 주식 시장 신뢰의 열쇠

### 상법 개정 주식 시장 강화의 길
* 💼 "최소한 상품 계좌를 가질 수 있다면 **주식 시장에 훨씬 더 의미 있고 유익**할 것입니다."
* 🤝 이소영 대표는 주식 투자자를 위한 금융투자업법보다 상법 개정이 **"약 500배 더 중요하다"**며 상법 개정의 중요성을 강조합니다.
* 📉 이 대표는 주식 양도에 대한 양도소득세 도입 가능성에 대해 우려를 표명하며, 특히 **연말에 투자를 억제**하고 **매도 압력을 높일 수 있다**고 주장했습니다.
* 📊 이 토론에서는 많은 사람들이 자신의 투자가 지배주주를 우선시하는 경영 행태에 취약하다고 느끼기 때문에 **주주 이익을 보호하기 위한 더 강력한 법적 프레임워크의 필요성**을 강조합니다.
* 🛠 이 대표는 주주 수익률과 시장 신뢰를 높이기 위해 **배당금 세제 혜택 강화**와 같은 점진적인 제도적 노력이 필요하다고 주장합니다.
* 🏦 그는 **한국 주식 시장이 여전히 실행 가능한 투자 옵션**이라고 지적하면서, 보다 건전한 시장 환경을 조성하기 위해서는 법률 개혁을 통해 신뢰를 구축해야 한다고 강조합니다.
* 💡 이러한 논의는 이러한 제도적 문제를 해결하는 것이 **주식 시장의 장기적인 안정과 성장**에 중요하다는 인식이 의원과 투자자 사이에서 확산되고 있음을 반영합니다.
* 🌍 궁극적으로 이 대표는 자본이 해외 시장이나 부동산으로 유출되는 것을 허용하는 대신 **주식 시장이 번창**하고 모든 국민에게 혜택을 줄 수 있도록 상법으로 초점을 전환할 것을 촉구합니다.

상법 개정은 투자자의 신뢰를 회복하고 주식 시장에서 공정한 대우를 보장하기 위해 반드시 필요합니다.

Isn't it a market where a thief wearing a Rolex occasionally appears and takes away my stocks? I think that regardless of how the financial investment service law is implemented or abolished, if only the commercial law account can be established, it would be much more meaningful and beneficial for our stock market. I believe that the financial investment service law account is about 500 times more important. 

Hello, I'm Lee Ho-seok. Today, we have a special guest, Representative Lee So-young. Hello! Yes, nice to meet you. Recently, there are hardly any stock investors who don't know you. Is that so? Yes, there is a lot of interest in you. The reason is that interest in financial investment has been growing, and it seems that interest in you has also increased. I saw a post you wrote this morning, and I heard that you gave up on an overseas business trip. I originally deal mainly with climate issues, and this time it's New York Climate Week.

I was invited as a panelist to an event with several small schedules, but I initially did not expect that the discussions on financial investment would be postponed until now. I thought that something would be finalized by early September, and that a business trip at the end of September would not be a problem. However, as it got delayed, it turned out to be an even more critical time. Therefore, as the person who first brought up this issue, I felt it wasn't appropriate to be absent during such an important discussion. So, I decided to give up my spot, and someone else will attend in my place. It's a bit disappointing because I'm also very active in this area, and I have a lot of interest in it; it's truly important work. Nonetheless, the discussions on financial investment have been prioritized to the extent that the schedule is being changed, highlighting the seriousness and necessity of this issue.

Could you please explain the current situation regarding your position and the party's stance? To be precise, the Democratic Party's position has not yet been finalized. This is because the stance of the party leader or the chair of the policy committee does not automatically represent the party's official position. While their views are important, decisions are made at the general assembly of the lawmakers, where all members gather. The policy assembly, which is supposed to discuss and decide on matters related to financial investment, has not yet convened. Therefore, the situation remains unconfirmed. I am currently urging that the policy assembly be convened quickly to finalize this issue. I have repeatedly stated my position on this matter: I believe that introducing a capital gains tax on stock transfers is something that needs to be done eventually, and it is a natural progression.

The basic premise is that we need to prevent money that should be entering our stock market from flowing out. This is important for the happiness of all citizens. Under this premise, if we introduce a capital gains tax on stock transfers in the current situation, not only will the returns be poor, but the expected returns will also decrease. Additionally, various market disruptions due to the capital gains tax, such as increased selling pressure at the end of the year, are clearly visible and will lead to several side effects. For stock investors, it becomes much easier to move to a market that offers better returns, even with taxes, but with less uncertainty. That market is the U.S. market. Therefore, given these concerns, the timing for introducing a capital gains tax on stocks is not right. As I have been saying, we have long advocated for better infrastructure.

However, due to opposition from the business community, the expansion of the duty of care for directors under commercial law has not progressed well. There has been a long-standing critique that shareholder returns in our country are weak and insufficient. For example, measures such as separating the taxation of dividend income have been proposed to enhance the incentives for dividends and to increase shareholder returns through expanded dividends. These institutional efforts should be pursued step by step. Regardless of taxes, the South Korean stock market is still worth investing in, and the expected returns are decent. At this point, introducing taxes would likely face much less opposition and concern than it would have before. However, the question remains: when will that moment be? Will it be in one year, two years? It's difficult to predict at this time. Additionally, just because we are amending commercial law or tax law doesn't mean that immediate changes will occur.

I don't think that will increase the market's reliability. So, we need to check how well these things are being implemented. For a considerable time now, our stock market has been stuck in a box for 17 years. The first time it hit 2000 was in 2007. That's right. So, we are at a point where we can visibly confirm that we are breaking out of the box and experiencing meaningful and healthy growth. At this stage, I believe we should persuade stock investors that we are moving towards a healthy and advanced market. Therefore, it seems to me that the next step is to establish a tax system, such as the capital gains tax on stocks, in line with this normal development. There are two important schedules regarding the revision of the Commercial Act. Your perspective is that the revision of the Commercial Act should come first. I’m not opposing that. In fact, I think the revision of the Commercial Act is about 500 times more important than the financial investment laws, from the perspective of stock investors.

Right now, you are enduring too much uncertainty and unfairness due to the management behavior that does not consider the interests of shareholders. For example, in order to save on inheritance tax, they artificially suppress stock prices. There are numerous actions that harm shareholder interests that are so outrageous they could only happen in broad daylight. I used the expression in yesterday's government questioning that it's like a thief wearing a Rolex watch occasionally appearing and stealing my stocks. Isn’t it a market where there is a pre-modern class system? Because, despite holding the same shares, the controlling shareholders act like nobles, manipulating this society to derive decisions that benefit themselves. Even though they have the same stake, ordinary shareholders see promising divisions being split off.

Suddenly disappearing or becoming something like a cash cow that generates 1 trillion won in operating profit can just vanish without a trace. It's absurd that such things happen. However, this is a truly backward market where we cannot prevent this with our laws. If we do not correct such management behaviors, how can I have confidence that my stocks will steadily grow in the future? Therefore, I believe that reforming the Commercial Act to establish that trust is of utmost importance. Honestly, I don't know how people will react when I say this, but regardless of how the implementation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and its potential abolition turns out, if we can at least have a product account, that would be much more meaningful and beneficial for our stock market. I am convinced of this. It is better to have a revision of the Commercial Act even without financial investment services than not to have a revision at all.

When people want to own something, the most important aspect is the certification of ownership. Isn't that the key concept behind wanting to possess something? However, in our country, stocks don't provide that. Even though you clearly bought them, it doesn't feel like they belong to you. One of the analogies that really resonated with me, as you mentioned, is comparing it to property tax. I found that very relatable. Instead of comparing it to capital gains tax, we should compare it to property tax. The perspective is that real estate is mine; when I buy a house, it belongs to me. But with stocks, it doesn't feel like they belong to me, which is where the issue arises. In the past, the concept of labor and capital was often seen as separate and opposing, but I believe that most people investing in stocks in our market are saving their labor income, their monthly salary, to invest.

Whether it's 10 million won or 20 million won, you're likely making investment decisions with that seed money. This is because it is difficult for our wage earners to gather enough money for a deposit for a rental house. It's certainly challenging to afford a home since housing prices are so high, and this doesn't even cover preparing for retirement. Therefore, ultimately, relying solely on earned income cannot resolve issues related to my future or stable housing for my children. This situation inevitably pushes individuals towards personal investment activities. In fact, today, labor and capital are not divided between those who earn money through earned income and those who earn through investment activities. Instead, those who earn money through labor are now also investing their earnings, creating an overlapping scenario. This means that a significant portion of the population is struggling to save money to invest.

However, when all of this is gathered, it amounts to a tremendous quantity. The people involved in politics or those leading the government need to ponder where this money should flow in order to be more beneficial to our nation and community. I believe they should create a direction based on this consideration. 

Now, if our citizens' money, which is aimed at generating wealth, flows into the real estate market, then real estate prices will rise significantly compared to now. This will lead to widespread unhappiness, as it will not help anyone. 

On the other hand, if this money goes into foreign stock markets and generates profits, it may benefit those individuals with higher returns. However, the money that should be coming into our companies is instead flowing out, which would not be good for our economy. It would be detrimental to creating additional jobs or advancing our industries in the long run.

If the people become unhappy, when this enters our stock market, it will increase the value of our companies and allow them to secure funding under better and cheaper conditions. This will activate new investments, and when new investments are stimulated, more jobs will be created. Consequently, many citizens will have access to more job opportunities and better salaries. This is how we can create a virtuous cycle. Therefore, rather than comparing labor income tax and capital gains tax to see which is higher and questioning why one is imposed while the other is not, we should focus on the choices available to us. We need to suppress high tax rates and promote low tax rates as an essential part of tax policy. This is the government's responsibility. While it is important to pave the way for our market and make it healthy, it is also crucial to recognize these economic incentives.

Rather, it is necessary to provide many benefits and incentives that attract money to this side, allowing citizens to build assets through our stock market. Therefore, the capital gains tax on real estate is somewhat more favorable than the taxes related to stocks, which will draw money in this direction. Thus, I believe it is appropriate to compare these two. Instead of just trying to prevent money from going into real estate, if we could slightly adjust the flow to encourage investment in stocks, I think money would come in. It seems that there are some barriers in that regard. Among my peers, ordinary office workers who are achieving decent returns from stock investments do not buy houses. The reason is that to purchase a house, they would have to sell their stocks. However, if they are confident that their stocks will rise further, they won't sell them. They are focused on growing their assets in the stock market. Just recently, for example, the apartments in Dongtan...

In some cases, the competition ratio for subscriptions has reached 3 million to 1. There have been news reports about this, and despite the intense competition for subscriptions, the expected return on investment in real estate is incredibly high if one wins the lottery. Additionally, if you own one house, you hardly pay any taxes, even if capital gains amount to several hundred million won. Currently, many people around me are flocking to this market. However, we need to address this issue. Shouldn't we discourage people from buying real estate? They might cut off loans and impose disadvantages, but with such high expected returns, it’s unlikely to deter them. Instead, we should provide a more stable and healthy alternative for asset formation. I believe that should be our stock market. I think the perception of making money through stocks in our country is still quite low. So, if I...

Before I start, I want to give you a book that I wrote with my daughter. When my daughter asked me how her dad could become rich, I couldn't help but say that investing in real estate has been the right choice so far. This is because I know that real estate has appreciated in value much more than stocks, and it seems that the government is also leaning in that direction. It's unfortunate that we are in a situation where I have to say this based on current experiences. 

In fact, if you look at the assets held by wealthy people in our country, the proportion of real estate is very high. If we consider the rankings of the richest people in the world, from first to tenth place, they are all stock billionaires—like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who are all stock investors. However, when children see these stock billionaires, they start to dream and think, I want to start a business and create jobs too.

We should think about becoming such a person, but in our country, the real estate situation doesn't quite match that idea. So, it's a very unfortunate situation. The role of politics is to create new trends. To connect this with another question, shouldn't members of the National Assembly be investing in stocks? I mean, if they own stocks, it seems a bit off to create policies just to manage their own investments, but I feel they should take an interest in it. I agree with that, but the public sentiment is that people really dislike it when members of the National Assembly invest here and there. They think, Why do you need to pursue profit when you already have power and honor? Why do you want to make money as well? You shouldn't pursue both at the same time. There is this long-standing sentiment, right? This applies to bureaucrats in the executive branch as well as politicians.

To understand the mindset of those engaged in profit-seeking activities, one must engage in such activities themselves. However, this is often seen as taboo and criticized negatively, so many prefer to avoid it. Not participating is more comfortable, as it helps them avoid situations like being scrutinized during hearings or facing intense questioning. In reality, due to concerns over conflicts of interest, direct investments in specific stocks are not allowed, and once elected, they must place their assets in a blind trust during their term. Investing in index funds may be permitted, but creating complex assets that require annual reporting and documentation is undesirable. Consequently, most politicians refrain from stock investments. Additionally, they often advise their family members against investing as well, since they must report the financial activities of their spouse and any dependent children.

I heard that your child is investing in cryptocurrencies. Last year, there were significant issues with cryptocurrencies, right? Well, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but the negative attention and having your name mentioned in articles can be unpleasant. Therefore, I think the public's perception needs to change. While it is certainly not acceptable to engage in investment activities that could lead to conflicts of interest, it is important for lawmakers, as participants in our country's economy, to contribute to creating good policies. Since the pandemic, there has been a growing recognition that we cannot rely solely on earned income to live, leading to a surge of individual investors entering the stock market. Consequently, when these investors came in, they noticed many things that seemed off. Investors have done extensive research on LG Chem.

The differentiation of resources for children, this kind of situation happens quite often. As a result, we learn from it. When you get hurt, you realize that you are in a difficult situation. However, when you look from the outside, it’s not visible. I believe that members of the National Assembly should also experience this firsthand. They should come in and see the situation for themselves; then they will understand. It’s incredibly frustrating, and unless you experience it, you won’t realize how necessary change is. I really hope they try it out.

On the other hand, my voice is a bit hoarse today because I didn’t sleep well last night, and I apologize for that. Conversely, there are ways to engage current politicians. For example, having someone like Professor Lee Ho-seok enter politics is one approach. Experts who understand the market well and know how to improve the stock market can contribute significantly to politics.

I dislike it; it's dirty. Please don't do that. Participating in politics is actually a really good way to get involved. I feel like I've added another issue by bringing this up. The reason I'm mentioning this is because there's a congresswoman in the U.S. named Nancy Pelosi. She's really good at stock investments. When she buys something, it’s like when Buffett buys it; the stock prices just soar. 

So, as I observe the situation in the U.S., I think about how members of Congress are investing like this, buying individual stocks and call options. They’re engaging in all sorts of trades. This makes me wonder what the problem is. If they publicly disclose all their investments clearly, I don’t think there would be any issues. I still feel that way.

Everything will be made public, right? It is indeed made public. By March every year, if you go online, you can see everything disclosed, including the spouses and direct relatives of members of the National Assembly and the amounts they hold in various stocks. So, ultimately, it becomes a matter of perception among people. That's one aspect, and I actually think it's right to prohibit direct investments. The reason is that I am involved a lot in electric vehicles and renewable energy. After the recent electric vehicle fire, I argued that it wasn't the fault of the electric vehicle; it was the fault of the manufacturers and the government. I have also supported legislation that provides subsidies for renewable energy. But if I owned stocks in electric vehicles or renewable energy, what would happen? My asset management could be misunderstood as a conflict of interest, so there are those issues. Therefore, I think a compromise solution would be index funds.

I think it would be helpful to consider policies that would be better if there were assets in the KOSPI or KOSDAQ, even if it's not individual stocks, like a technology fund. When I listen to interviews with members of the National Assembly, it seems like they are still not fully aware of these issues, and there are many areas where they lack understanding. While I'm sure the points made by the members are being conveyed, there is still a frustrating aspect from the investors' perspective. That's why I wanted to share these thoughts. 

In conclusion, there have been various discussions and controversies surrounding financial investment, and I am cautious about predicting whether it will be beneficial or not. However, if you were to ask for my very personal opinion, I believe the atmosphere is changing, and the likelihood of improvement has significantly increased. This is just my personal view.

I understand. Then, the transition to discussing the capital market is positive from the investor's perspective. In my view, the stock prices started to rebound from this past Monday. I truly believe this is due to the sense of anticipation. Until last weekend, the reaction was somewhat skeptical, but since the weekend, the atmosphere has changed. You also posted something on Facebook, and that made people feel more optimistic, leading to a real increase in stock prices, which is continuing today. I genuinely think that has an impact. However, this alone cannot be the end. I believe the focus needs to shift to the Commercial Act. It would be great if you could explain why we need to shift our attention to the Commercial Act.

롤렉스 찬 도둑이 내 주식을 훔쳐가고 있어요⎮이소영 국회의원

효친님들을 위한 바이사이드 애널리스트 이효석 매니지스트입니다. 
운용 경험을 살려서 변화된 세상에서 생존을 위한 투자전략을 리서치하고 있습니다.
비즈니스/광고/협업 문의 : contact@hs-academy.kr


이효석아카데미

이호석 변호사가 주식시장 활성화를 위한 상법상 계좌의 필요성에 대해 이야기하며 금융투자업법보다 상법상 계좌의 중요성을 강조합니다.

금융투자 논의의 핵심 인물인 이소영 의원은 정책 입법이 지연되고 있는 주식 양도에 대한 양도소득세의 필요성을 강조합니다.

그러나 이 의원은 양도소득세가 도입될 경우 수익률 하락과 매도 압력 증가로 이어져 투자자들이 더 나은 수익을 위해 미국 시장으로 몰릴 수 있어 현재 시기가 적절하지 않다고 경고합니다.

한국에서 이사의 선관주의 의무와 주주 환원을 위한 투쟁

국내 상법상 이사의 선관주의 의무 확대는 재계의 반대에 부딪혀 더딘 진전을 보이고 있습니다.

배당소득 분리과세 등 주주 수익률 제고를 위한 방안이 제시되고 있지만 도입 시기는 여전히 불확실합니다.

주식시장은 17년째 침체되어 있어 신뢰를 구축하고 주주 이익을 해치는 경영 행태를 개선하기 위한 상법 개정이 필요하다는 요구가 있습니다.

소유권 인증의 중요성과 투자에 미치는 영향

무언가를 소유하기 위해서는 소유권을 증명하는 것이 중요하지만, 국내 주식은 이러한 소유감을 제공하지 못합니다.

많은 개인이 노동 소득을 투자에 투자하여 돈을 축적하고 있으며, 노동과 자본이 중첩되는 현상이 발생하고 있습니다.

시민들의 자금이 주식 시장으로 유입되면 기업 가치가 상승하고 신규 투자가 촉진되며 궁극적으로 더 많은 일자리와 더 나은 급여를 창출하여 경제의 선순환으로 이어질 수 있습니다.

부동산 투자 대 주식 시장 투자에 대한 논쟁

부동산에 대한 양도소득세는 주식에 대한 양도소득세보다 유리하기 때문에 부동산으로 자금이 몰리고 있습니다.

일반 직장인들은 자산 증식을 위해 보유하고 있는 주식을 팔아야 하기 때문에 주택 구입을 망설이고 있습니다.

부동산의 높은 기대 수익률과 주택 소유자의 낮은 세금 부담은 사람들을 부동산 시장으로 이끌고 있는 반면, 주식 시장의 자산 형성 가능성은 국내에서 저평가되어 있습니다.

이윤 추구 활동에 참여하는 것은 금기시되는 경우가 많아 많은 정치인들이 이해 상충으로 인해 직접 주식 투자를 피하는 경우가 많습니다.

팬데믹 이후 추가 소득의 필요성에 대한 인식이 높아지면서 주식 시장에 개인 투자자가 급증했고, 이에 따라 해결해야 할 불균형이 부각되고 있습니다.

저자는 이러한 문제를 직접 경험하는 것이 의원들이 변화의 필요성을 이해하는 데 중요하다고 제안하며, 시장에 정통한 전문가들이 정계에 진출할 경우 잠재적으로 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다고 지적합니다.

국회의원의 금융 보유 내역이 매년 공개되면서 잠재적 이해 상충에 대한 우려가 제기되고 있습니다.

연사는 직접 투자 금지를 주장하며 절충안으로 인덱스 펀드를 제안합니다.

최근 주가가 반등하고 투자 심리가 긍정적으로 바뀌는 등 자본시장의 분위기가 긍정적으로 변화하고 있다고 판단하고 있습니다.