어음은 기업 자금융통의 방법으로 여러 가지 순기능이 있음에도 불구하고, 대기업의일방적인 어음관행이나, 수·위탁 기업 거래 간의 결제지연 등의 문제가 지적되고 있다.
어음의 부작용을 최소화하고 어음의 대체수단을 통해 어음거래가 자연스럽게 축소될수 있도록 하는 정책이 추진되어 기업구매전용카드 제도 등 어음대체결제 수단들이 도입되었다.
그러나 어음제도의 여러 가지 제도개선 논의 및 대체수단의 마련과 사용촉진에도 불구하고 최근에도 여전히 수취기일 돌려막기 등의 현실적인 문제가 발생하고 있으며, 전자방식 외상매출채권담보대출(외담대) 제도 등 대체수단의 부작용도 나타나고 있다.
어음의 만기제도를 개선하여 어음결제 지연에서 발생하는 문제를 해소하고자 할 경우「어음법」에 특례를 두는 것 보다는 「전자어음법」에 해당 내용을 반영하는 것이 부작용이적을 것이다. 이미 「전자어음법」 제6조제5항에서는 “전자어음의 만기는 발행일부터 1년을 초과할 수 없다”고 규정하여, 「어음법」에는 없는 만기제한 규정을 이미 두고 있으므로, 그 동안 제기되어 왔던 어음관련 만기의 통일성 문제도 해소하고, 「어음법」의 특별법적 성격을 가지는 만큼, 어음 관련 체계의 정합성도 유지할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.
「전자어음법」을 통한 개선방안 외에 「어음법」의 이자지급방식의 강화를 통한 개선방식을 검토해 볼 수 있는데, 이 방안은 「어음법」에 이자의 약정 및 이율을 기재하도록 명시하고 별도로 정함이 없는 경우에는 법정이율에 의하도록 하여 금융비용이 중소기업또는 중소기업 간 거래에서는 보다 영세한 기업에게 전가되지 않도록 하여야 할 것이다.
한편, 어음의 대체결제수단인 외담대는 어음이 아니기 때문에 「전자어음법」의 적용을받지 않으며, 관리·감독도 명확하지 않다. 따라서 구매기업이 도덕적 해이에 의해 의도적으로 대출금 상환을 지연함으로써 공급기업의 자금 악화를 발생시키는 경우에도 마땅한 제재수단을 갖추고 있지 못한 문제가 있다.
외담대의 이러한 구조적인 모순을 전제로 한 상황에서는 그 부작용을 직접 해소하기는 불가능할 것이고, 상환청구권 없는 외담대 사용시의 인센티브를 현재 「조세제한특례법」상 제한적인 법인세 감면 수준에 더하여 전폭적인 지원을 해 주거나, 상환청구권 있는 외담대를 폐지하고 구매자 담보 대출로 전환하는 방안을 검토하여야 할 것이다.
Bills of exchange are a useful means of fund supply to businesses but give riseto problems like the high-handed practices of large-sized businesses toward theirsmaller counterparts in payment using bills of exchange or delay in payment forbills of exchange in transactions between entrusting and entrusted businesses. Measures have been taken to minimize the side effects of bills of exchange as wellas transactions based on bills of exchange through the adoption of alternativemethods of payment, like purchasing card. Despite such efforts, problems likeissuing another bill of exchange on the payment due date of an existing onestill occur. Side effects of alternative payment means, like electronic AccountReceivable Loans (ARLs), are also reported. With regard to the effort to put anend to the problems associated with delay in payment through the improvementof the system regarding the maturity of bills of exchange, fewer side effects can beexpected if the relevant content is reflected on the Electronic Bills of Exchangeand Promissory Notes Act instead of inserting exceptions to the Bills of Exchangeand Promissory Notes Act. Article 6 (5) of the Issuance and Distribution ofElectronic Bills Act stipulates thus: “The maturity of each electronic bill shall notexceed one year from the date of issuance.” In other words, said law has a clauseabout maturity-related limitation, unlike the Bills of Exchange and PromissoryNotes Act. Thus, said law will put an end to the problem of wide-rangingmaturity periods and maintain consistency of the bills of exchange-related systemas a kind of a special law on bills of exchange. The current problems may also be addressed by strengthening the clause onthe interest payment method in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory NotesAct. “Strengthening” as stated in the foregoing sentence refers to having the Actinclude a clause on the promised interest rate stated in the bills of exchange andhaving the issuer of a bill of exchange pay a statutory interest rate so that theburden of financial expenses is not passed on to SMEs. As for ARL, which is an alternative means of payment to bills of exchange,it is not covered by the Electronic Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;neither are there clear-cut regulations regarding its management and supervision. There is no good means of remedy against a situation caused by a businessdelaying the repayment of a loan under moral hazard. Concerning the structural problem of ARLs, there is no direct way to put astop to their side effects. Either of the following practices should be adopted:positive support should be provided to businesses using ARL without the rightto claim redemption in addition to the current level of reduction/exemption ofcorporate tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; ARL with the right toclaim redemption should be replaced with purchaser collateral-based loans.
Bills of exchange are a useful means of fund supply to businesses but give riseto problems like the high-handed practices of large-sized businesses toward theirsmaller counterparts in payment using bills of exchange or delay in payment forbills of exchange in transactions between entrusting and entrusted businesses. Measures have been taken to minimize the side effects of bills of exchange as wellas transactions based on bills of exchange through the adoption of alternativemethods of payment, like purchasing card. Despite such efforts, problems likeissuing another bill of exchange on the payment due date of an existing onestill occur. Side effects of alternative payment means, like electronic AccountReceivable Loans (ARLs), are also reported. With regard to the effort to put anend to the problems associated with delay in payment through the improvementof the system regarding the maturity of bills of exchange, fewer side effects can beexpected if the relevant content is reflected on the Electronic Bills of Exchangeand Promissory Notes Act instead of inserting exceptions to the Bills of Exchangeand Promissory Notes Act. Article 6 (5) of the Issuance and Distribution ofElectronic Bills Act stipulates thus: “The maturity of each electronic bill shall notexceed one year from the date of issuance.” In other words, said law has a clauseabout maturity-related limitation, unlike the Bills of Exchange and PromissoryNotes Act. Thus, said law will put an end to the problem of wide-rangingmaturity periods and maintain consistency of the bills of exchange-related systemas a kind of a special law on bills of exchange. The current problems may also be addressed by strengthening the clause onthe interest payment method in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory NotesAct. “Strengthening” as stated in the foregoing sentence refers to having the Actinclude a clause on the promised interest rate stated in the bills of exchange andhaving the issuer of a bill of exchange pay a statutory interest rate so that theburden of financial expenses is not passed on to SMEs. As for ARL, which is an alternative means of payment to bills of exchange,it is not covered by the Electronic Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;neither are there clear-cut regulations regarding its management and supervision. There is no good means of remedy against a situation caused by a businessdelaying the repayment of a loan under moral hazard. Concerning the structural problem of ARLs, there is no direct way to put astop to their side effects. Either of the following practices should be adopted:positive support should be provided to businesses using ARL without the rightto claim redemption in addition to the current level of reduction/exemption ofcorporate tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; ARL with the right toclaim redemption should be replaced with purchaser collateral-based loans.
