은행의 중도상환수수료는 고객이 약정기일 전에 대출금의 일부 또는 전부를 상환하는 경우에 은행이 고객으로부터 수취하는 금원으로 민법상 손해배상액의 예정 내지 위약금의 성격을 갖는다. 이러한 중도상환수수료가 과도한 경우 고객의 중도상환할 수 있는 권리가 침해될 수 있으며, 반면 중도상환수수료 부과가 이루어지지 않는 경우에는 고객의 무분별한 중도상환으로 인하여 은행에 막대한 손해가 발생될 수도 있다. 따라서 중도상환과 관련하여 고객과 은행간의 균형있는 이익을 도모하기 위하여 합리적이고 적절한 수준의 중도상환수수료 부과가 필요하다.
현재 우리나라 은행의 중도상환수수료 부과는 정형화된 방식에 따라 일률적으로 이루어지고 있기 때문에 대출상품에 따라 중도상환수수료가 차등화되어 있지 않으며, 은행간에도 중도상환수료 부과방식이 거의 동일하기 때문에 차별화되어 있지 않아 중도상환수수료에 대한 고객의 불만이 상당하다. 반면 외국의 경우 대출실행비용 중 회수되지 않는 미회수 대출실행비용, 중도상환으로 인한 이자손해, 중도상환으로 인한 업무를 처리하는데 드는 비용 등을 고려하여 대출상품에 따라 중도상환수수료를 부과하고 있기 때문에 대출상품에 따라 중도상환수수료가 상이하며, 은행간 부과방식도 차별화되어 있어 중도상환수수료가 대출상품 선택에 있어 중요한 고려사항이 되고 있다.
고객의 중도상환으로 말미암아 발생하게 되는 은행의 손해를 보전하기 위해 은행이 고객에게 부과하는 중도상환수수료 법적으로 정당하지만, 국내 은행들이 사용하고 있는 중도상환수수료 부과방식은 대출상품에 따른 미회수 대출실행비용의 차이를 고려하지 않고 있으며, 금리변동차이를 제대로 반영하지 않고 일실이자를 산정하여 불합리하고, 중도상환의 원인과 상황에 대한 고려가 미흡하여 비자발적 중도상환의 경우에도 중도상환수수료가 부과되기도 하여 고객의 불만이 가중되고 있는 실정이다.
향후 중도상환수수료 부과방식을 개선함에 있어 중도상환에 따른 은행의 손해 범위를 명확하게 산정하고, 이를 바탕으로 하여 대출신청방법, 금리유형, 담보 여부 등을 고려하여 중도상환수수료 부과체계를 다양화하여 고객의 선택권을 보장하는 방안으로 중도상환수수료 부과방식이 개선하도록 해야 할 것이다.
A repayment penalty imposed by a bank is defined as a monetary source that the bank charges customers when they repay all or a part of loans prior to the maturity, and it has features of 'monetary damage' or 'cancellation charge' in accordance with the Korean Civil Code. When this repayment penalty is overcharged, the customers’ rights for repayment is limited, whereas the bank’s profits are affected when the repayment penalty is not charged. Therefore, it is essential to charge the repayment penalty at a reasonable and practical level in order to promote proportioned gains. The repayment penalty becomes important considerations in selecting loan products in case of other countries. Because it is differentiated for each loan product in the light of unreturned establishment costs out of loan costs, losses of interest rate due to the repayment, and banks' costs to manage the works by the repayment, most Korean banks apply the same rule by the same method for the loan products, instead of applying the repayment penalty in accordance with features of each loan product. Thus, no difference can be found among those banks. Accordingly, recently the number of customers' complaints on the current method of repayment penalty is significantly increasing. The repayment penalty imposed on the customers by a bank to compensate for the loss occurred following the customers’ repayment is legally valid. However, the current method to apply the repayment penalty by Korean banks does not consider the difference between unreturned establishment costs for each loan product, seems to be unreasonable in calculating the lost interest without reflecting the gap in cost of the funding, lacks considering the cause and condition of the repayment, and even applies the repayment penalty to the involuntary repayment as well. These are aggravating the client complaints. For further improvement for the application of repayment penalty, it is necessary to calculate banks' damage due to the repayment, and based on such size of damage, it needs to diversify the methods of charging repayment penalty, taking into account the loan application method, the type of an interest rate, and the collaterals attached. Further, allowing customers to choose loan products, that is, the loan product with repayment penalty or the loan product without repayment penalty, is another important suggestion.
A repayment penalty imposed by a bank is defined as a monetary source that the bank charges customers when they repay all or a part of loans prior to the maturity, and it has features of 'monetary damage' or 'cancellation charge' in accordance with the Korean Civil Code. When this repayment penalty is overcharged, the customers’ rights for repayment is limited, whereas the bank’s profits are affected when the repayment penalty is not charged. Therefore, it is essential to charge the repayment penalty at a reasonable and practical level in order to promote proportioned gains. The repayment penalty becomes important considerations in selecting loan products in case of other countries. Because it is differentiated for each loan product in the light of unreturned establishment costs out of loan costs, losses of interest rate due to the repayment, and banks' costs to manage the works by the repayment, most Korean banks apply the same rule by the same method for the loan products, instead of applying the repayment penalty in accordance with features of each loan product. Thus, no difference can be found among those banks. Accordingly, recently the number of customers' complaints on the current method of repayment penalty is significantly increasing. The repayment penalty imposed on the customers by a bank to compensate for the loss occurred following the customers’ repayment is legally valid. However, the current method to apply the repayment penalty by Korean banks does not consider the difference between unreturned establishment costs for each loan product, seems to be unreasonable in calculating the lost interest without reflecting the gap in cost of the funding, lacks considering the cause and condition of the repayment, and even applies the repayment penalty to the involuntary repayment as well. These are aggravating the client complaints. For further improvement for the application of repayment penalty, it is necessary to calculate banks' damage due to the repayment, and based on such size of damage, it needs to diversify the methods of charging repayment penalty, taking into account the loan application method, the type of an interest rate, and the collaterals attached. Further, allowing customers to choose loan products, that is, the loan product with repayment penalty or the loan product without repayment penalty, is another important suggestion.
