프로젝트 파이넨스(PF)의 현행법상 몇 가지 문제점 (Some Legal Issues on the Domestic Project Finance(PF))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국경영법률학회
· 수록지 정보 : 경영법률 / 20권 / 1호 / 521 ~ 544페이지
· 저자명 : 진홍기

초록

Modern project finance('PF') is said to have been invented in U.S. when independent oil companies, particularly in Texas, tried to find and extract oil, banks had provided funds relying only for cash flow generated by the resource betting that the oil was actually present and that it could be sold at a price that lived up to initial expectation. In the PF, the sponsors ordinarily establish legally distinct economic entities(project company: PC), to develop, manage, and finance the project. A PC borrows money on a limited or non-recourse basis from the bank on the condition that the banks rely on the project’s cash flows rather than on the assets or general credit of the sponsors for the loan repayment(this is called 'the PF in the true sense'). Despite the nature of a PF in terms of the non-recourse(or limited recourse) basis loan, the domestic PF in field of real estate development does highly rely on the credit and capacity of construction companies, placing on them all the risks arising out of the project. Therefore, the domestic PF does not fall within the PF in the true sense.
The main reason that the domestic PFs are far behind the international level can be due to the insufficient and the premature domestic financial systems, along with the institutional inertia. For example, project companies and the banks also have to meet with a lot of barriers to the relevant law, e.g. company law, banking law and competition law. The lack of well trained and sophisticated developers and an underdeveloped capital market is also hurting domestic PFs, too. In order to rehabilitate a domestic PF and level up to an international criteria, a stakeholder must go back to the PF in the true sense and fix the financial systems, which consists of relevant law reforms and the development of the capital market for the PF.

영어초록

Modern project finance('PF') is said to have been invented in U.S. when independent oil companies, particularly in Texas, tried to find and extract oil, banks had provided funds relying only for cash flow generated by the resource betting that the oil was actually present and that it could be sold at a price that lived up to initial expectation. In the PF, the sponsors ordinarily establish legally distinct economic entities(project company: PC), to develop, manage, and finance the project. A PC borrows money on a limited or non-recourse basis from the bank on the condition that the banks rely on the project’s cash flows rather than on the assets or general credit of the sponsors for the loan repayment(this is called 'the PF in the true sense'). Despite the nature of a PF in terms of the non-recourse(or limited recourse) basis loan, the domestic PF in field of real estate development does highly rely on the credit and capacity of construction companies, placing on them all the risks arising out of the project. Therefore, the domestic PF does not fall within the PF in the true sense.
The main reason that the domestic PFs are far behind the international level can be due to the insufficient and the premature domestic financial systems, along with the institutional inertia. For example, project companies and the banks also have to meet with a lot of barriers to the relevant law, e.g. company law, banking law and competition law. The lack of well trained and sophisticated developers and an underdeveloped capital market is also hurting domestic PFs, too. In order to rehabilitate a domestic PF and level up to an international criteria, a stakeholder must go back to the PF in the true sense and fix the financial systems, which consists of relevant law reforms and the development of the capital market for the PF.

참고자료

· 없음