• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2004

The role of the financial institution to promote corporate sustainability may be reviewed in two angles, as a commercial lender and an investor. As a commercial lender, financial institutions should minimize the legal risks and the political risks. Financial institutions began to recognize environmental risks as legal risks that directly affect their lending practices since the legislation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act("Superfund") of the U.S.A. The so-called lender liability rule has a detailed guideline where the financial institutions may be exempted from the Superfund Liability. Similar attempts are noticed in the recent EU White Paper on Environmental Liability. In Korea, comprehensive environmental liability laws are yet to be developed. The Soil Environment Preservation Act now includes a far-reaching environmental liability provisions, where the owners and operators as well as receivers of the facility bear responsibility. However, whether the financial institutions may be captured as a potential responsible party is not very clear. Until the relevant legislation is developed and court decisions accumulate, Korean financial institutions are well advised to raise awareness on this issue, to develop environmental policies and to train personnels.

• 한국지하수토양환경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국지하수토양환경학회 1999년도 추계학술발표회
• /
• pp.53-56
• /
• 1999

The concerned party of purification liability in a soil pollution is an owner or occupant of a contaminated site. But when we don't appoint the polluter or he can't do a cleanup, municipal put in effect the purification. In such a case, another parties who are related to the contamination ought to the liability. The province of responsible parties, therefore, is required to extend to an owner or operator of a facility, a carrier and lender

• 한국지하수토양환경학회지:지하수토양환경
• /
• 제10권6호
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

토양오염으로 인해 피해가 발생하면 그 피해배상과 토양오염정화에 대한 책임을 진다. 이러한 책임은 민사상의 일반적 책임과는 다르다. 토양환경보전법상으로는 피해에 대하여 과실책임이 아닌 무과실책임을 지우고 있으며, 공동의 책임인 경우에는 연대책임(부진정연대책임)을 지우고 있다. 이것은 피해자의 구제를 용이하게 하기 위한 것이다. 그리고 토양정화책임과 그에 따른 비용책임에 대하여도 소급책임, 엄격책임, 연대책임을 지게하고 있다. 다만 천재지변과 전쟁으로 인한 경우에는 면책하고 있다. 책임당사자는 오염유발자와 토양오염시설의 소유 또는 점유자 및 운영자, 그리고 그 시설을 양수한 자 및 인수자로 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 책임당사자가 불명하거나 무자력 등으로 인하여 책임을 질 수 없는 경구에 결국 국가가 책임을 짐으로써 국민의 조세부담을 가중시킬 염려가 있다 따라서 책임당사자의 범위를 확대시키거나 정화비용에 대한 기금제도의 활용이 요청된다

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2006

Today's financial institutions usually take environmental issues seriously into consideration as they could not evade lender liability in an increasing number of cases. On the international scene, a brand-new concept of the "Equator Principles" in the New Millenium has driven more and more international banks to adopt these Principles in project financing. Sustainable development has been a key word in understanding new trends of the governments, financial institutions, corporations and civic groups in the 21st century. The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for sustainable finance. These Principles commit bank officers to avoid financial support to projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The Principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation(IFC), and launched in June 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks, accounting for up to 80 percent of project loan market, have adopted the Principles. Accordingly, the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental issues of projects to be financed. Compliance with the Equator Principles facilitates for endorsing banks to participate in the syndicated loan and help them to manage the risks associated with large-scale projects. The Equator Principles call for financial institutions to provide loans to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the IFC. - For Category A and B projects, borrowers or sponsors are required to conduct a Social and Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key social and environmental issues. - The Social and Environmental Assessment report should address baseline social and environmental conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, sustainable development, and, as appropriate, IFC's Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, etc. - Based on the Social and Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with borrowers on how they mitigate, monitor and manage the risks through a Social and Environmental Management System. Compliance with the plan is included in the covenant clause of loan agreements. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective actions. The Equator Principles are not a mere declaration of cautious banks but a full commitment of lenders. A violation of the Principles in the process of project financing, which led to an unexpected damage to the affected community, would not give rise to any specific legal remedies other than ordinary lawsuits. So it is more effective for banks to ensure consistent implementation of the Principles and to have them take responsible measures to solve social and environmental issues. Public interests have recently mounted up with respect to environmental issues on the occasion of the Supreme Court's decision (2006Du330) on the fiercely debated reclamation project at Saemangeum. The majority Justices said that the expected environmental damages like probable pollution of water and soil were not believed so serious and that the Administration should continue to implement the project seeking ways to make it more environment friendly. In this case, though the Category A Saemangeum Project was carried out by a government agency, the Supreme Court behaved itself as a signal giver to approve or stop the environment-related project like an Equator bank in project financing. At present, there is no Equator bank in Korea in contrast to three big banks in Japan. Also Korean contractors, which are aggressively bidding for Category A-type projects in South East Asia and Mideast, might find themselves in a disadvantageous position because they are generally ignorant of the environmental assessment associated with project financing. In this regard, Korean banks and overseas project contractors should care for the revised Equator Principles and the latest developments in project financing more seriously. It's because its scope has expanded to the capital cost of US$10 million or more across all industry sectors regardless of developing countries or not. It should be noted that, for a Korean bank, being an Equator bank is more or less burdensome in a short-term period, but it must be conducive to minimizing risks and building up good reputation in the long run.