포스트코로나 대비 경제활력 제고를 위한

디지털 신산업 규제혁신 방안 연구

2023년 6월

국무조정실

한레지나

<목 차>

국외훈련개요

훈련기관 소개

국문요약서

훈련결과보고서

국외훈련개요

◯ 훈련국 : 영국 (United Kingdom)

◯ 훈련기관 : University of Kent

◯ 훈련분야 : 규제혁신

◯ 훈련기간 : 2021.8 ~ 2023.6

훈련기관 소개

그림  : 켄트대학 로고

◯ 기관명 : University of Kent

- 주소 : Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NZ

- 홈페이지 : www.Kent.ac.uk

◯ 과정명 : International social policy (MA)

◯ 훈련기관 및 과정 소개

- University of Kent는 영국 동남부 Canterbury에 위치하고 있으며, 1965년 왕실 헌장을 받아 처음 설립됨

- 점차 규모가 커지면서 1982년에는 톤브릿지(Tonbridge) 캠퍼스가, 1990년대와 2000년대에 Medway, 벨기에 Brussels에 캠퍼스를 세우고 캔터베리 그리스도 교회 대학, 웨스트 켄트 대학, 사우스 켄트 대학, 미드켄트 대학과 파트너십을 체결

그림  : University of Kent (Canterbury campus) 전경

- 현재 2만명 가량의 학생과 4천명가량의 교직원이 근무하는 공립대학교으로 인문, 사회과학, 이공계, 예술 등 종합대학임

- 캔트대학교(The University of Kent)는 6개 학부(예술․인문, 자연과학, 컴퓨터․공학․수학, 경영학, 인문사회과학, 법학 및 사회․사회정의 학부), 21개 학과를 운영하고 있으며, 아테네 ㆍ 브뤼셀 ㆍ 파리 및 로마에 연구 센터 등을 보유하고 있음

- 영국 내에서도 상위 20위 권 중의 하나로서 평가받는 우수한 대학으로서, 영국 안에 있는 European University로서의 위치를 지향하며, 특히 Social Policy MA과정은 영국 내에서 10위권 안에 랭크되어 있음

그림  : University of Kent Caterbury campus 전경

- sspss(school of social policy, sociology, and social research)로 사회정책학, 사회학, 사회조사, 범죄학의 4개 분야로 구성됨. 사회정책학 분야에서는 세계의 복지정책, 각 국가별 주요 사회현상과 이슈에 대해 배움

- 국제사회정책학 석사과정(two year master's in international social policy(ma)])은 2년짜리 과정으로 사회복지(각국의 사회복지제도 비교 연구)와 사회학(빈곤, 개인주의, 위험사회 이론 등)이 커리큘럼의 주를 이루고 있음

- 졸업을 위한 이수학점은 총 300 Credit인데 수업을 통해 240학점, 논문 작성을 통해 60학점을 취득함

- 1년차에는 복지국가 이론 및 비교정책 사례를 전반적으로 탐구하는 전공 과목들 외에도 영어 세미나, 학문적 글쓰기 및 리서치 세미나 과목도 포함되어 있음

- 학문적 글쓰기와 연구방법론 등의 3개 과정을 필수과목으로 수강해야 하는 점이 타 대학과 다른 특징이며 위 3개 과정은 소속학과 교수들이 아닌 인터내셔널 팀의 튜터(주로 영문학 및 언어학 전공자)들이 가르치고 있어 비영어권 학생들에게 유용함

- 2년차에는 연구분야별 심화된 강의 및 세미나와 함께, 논문 작성을 위한 방법론 강의 및 세미나가 함께 이루어짐

- 별도의 논문학기가 있지 않고, 강의 및 세미나를 소화하면서 논문을 작성해야 하지만 수업들이 논문작성과 다 연관이 되어 있어 체계적으로 연구를 심화시킬 수 있다는 장점이 있음

국문요약

□ 연구배경

ㅇ 21세기에 들어서 정보통신 기술은 하루가 다르게 발전하고 있고, 이런 ICT 발전은 기존 산업인 금융, 에너지, 의료, 교육 등 다양한 영역과 결합되어 신산업이 급속도로 발전하고 있다. 신기술 혁신은 경제적 이익과 광범위한 시너지 효과를 발생시키고 있어 세계 각국은 앞다투어 자국의 신산업 발전을 이끌고 있다.

ㅇ 신기술 성장이 모두 바람직한 결과만을 발생시키는 것은 아니다. 오히려 예측하지 못한 부작용이 국민의 안전과 건강, 환경 부분에 일어나고 소비자들의 피해를 일으킬수도 있다. 신기술은 약속된 꿈이 아니다. 국가는 신기술로부터 국민의 안전과 생명을 보호할 의무가 발생되기도 한다. 신산업으로 인한 이익과 국민 보호라는 공익 추구, 두가지 목적을 모두 달성하기 위해서, 국가는 규제를 효과적이고 적절한 수준으로 유지해야 한다.

ㅇ 규제가 과도할 경우 오히려 경제적 혁신을 저해되기 때문에 다는 사실도 잊어서는 안된다. 따라서 신산업, 신기술 발전을 위해 적절한 수준의 규제는 무엇인가에 대해 많은 논의가 이루어지고 있다.

ㅇ 규제와 혁신의 관계에 대한 기존 연구들은 규제가 혁신 투자 동기를 부여하고 혁신에 대한 목표로서의 역할을 하며 (Blind, 2012; Porter and van der Linde, 1995), 시장의 불확실성을 낮춰주고 (Blind, 2012; Stewart, 2010) 상품, 서비스의 가치가 향상되도록 할 때 (Munos, 2009) 혁신을 촉진하지만 기존 시장에 대한 보호를 통해 경쟁을 약화시키고(Alesina, Ardagna and Nicoletti, 2005) 기업에 규제 준수 등을 위한 비용부담을 증가시키며(Barbosa and Faria, 2011) 인허가 및 심사 절차 등으로 인해 혁신개발 인센티브를 낮출 때는 혁신을 저해한다고 하였다 (Vernon, 2009).

ㅇ 문재인 정부는 출범 이후 융복합･신기술의 발전으로 인한 급속한 환경 변화에 대응하여 포괄적 네거티브 규제를 신산업 분야에 전면적으로 도입하는 등 규제개혁 패러다임을 근본적으로 전환하겠다고 발표하였다 (국무조정실, 2017). 포괄적 네거티브는 원칙적으로 허용하고 예외적으로 금지하는(원칙허용-예외금지) 기존의 네거티브 리스트를 확대한 것으로서, “신제품과 신서비스 출시를 먼저 허용하고, 필요시 규제하는 체계를 위한 다양한 입법 방식과 혁신제도를 포괄”하는 것을 의미하였다 (관계부처 합동, 2017).

ㅇ 이 보고서에서는 디지털 신산업 분야의 혁신을 이끌어내기 위한 살펴보기 위해서 신산업 분야의 혁신과 규제 사이의 이론적 관계를 고찰하고, 코로나 이후 가장 중요하게 평가받고 있는, 스마트차와 헬스케어 그리고 핀테크 분야의 규제혁신 사례를 살펴본다. 또한 영국과 중국 등 주요국의 규제혁신 사례를 한국의 경우와 비교해보고, 바람직한 규제혁신 방안에 대해도 탐색해본다.

□ 이론적 논의

ㅇ (규제와 기술혁신과의 관계) 기존 경제학적 관점에서 규제는 독점, 정보의 불군형, 부정적 외부효과, 공공재의 비극과 같은 시장 실패 현상을 보정하기 위한다는 공익적 요구에 대응하기 위해 시장의 개인, 기업에 영향을 주는 법, 제도들을 의미한다 (Francis, 1993).

- 정부의 규제는 공공의 보호라는 목적은 달성했음에도, 민간의 혁신의 걸림돌로 작용하여 전반적인 혁신은 낮아지는 영향을 주기도 한다. 전통 경제학 관점에서의 연구는 비용최소화의 최적 상태에 있는 기업들에게 규제 준수를 요구하는 것은 규제 준수 비용이라는 부담을 주게 되어 혁신에 부정적 영향을 미친다고 주장한다 (Ambec, Cohen, Elgie and Lanoie, 2013).

- 규제는 일종의 시장의 진입을 방해하고 민간의 경쟁을 저해하여 일종의 과독점 상태를 형성시킬수 있다. 정부의 규제로부터 보호를 받은 기업들은 새로운 상품과 서비스를 개발할 유인이 저해되며, 연구개발에 투자할 인센티브가 감소하여 장기적으로는 혁신에 부정적 영향을 일으킨다.

- 하지만 규제가 기술 혁신을 저해하기만 하는 것은 아니다. 정부의 규제를 준수하기 위해 기업들은 지소적으로 기술혁신을 일으키고, 이로 인해 규제를 받지 않는 해외 기업들에 대해 기술적 우위를 점하게 된다는 것이다. 단기적으로 기업들은 규제 준수를 위해 기술 개발 비용을 지불해야 하지만, 장기적으로 이에 대한 비용을 전부 또는 일부라도 보상받을 수 있다는 주장이다 (Porter and van der Linde, 1995).

- 공익 달성을 위한 사회적 규제가 존재하는 것 만으로도 이를 준수하기 위한 혁신이 일어난다는 주장도 제기된다 (Blind, 2012). 종합하자면 정부의 규제는 미래지향적 목표점을 제시하고, 이에 도달하기 위해 민간 기업에서는 경영 또는 기술적 혁신을 일이키게 되고 이는 결과적으로 사회 전체적으로 긍정적 효과를 발생시킨다고 해석될 수 있다.

- 한번 제정된 규제는 모든 사회구성원을 구속하는 법적 효과를 발생시키기 때문에, 규제의 개정과정은 매우 복잡하고 모든 관련 정보를 수집하여 사실관계를 바탕으로 하는 분석이 전제되어야 하는 민감한 과정을 거친다. 시장의 기술은 하루가 다르게 변화하지만, 입법을 위한 정보 수집 및 분석, 사실관계 확인은 지난한 과정을 통해 미래를 예측하고 필요한 규율을 찾아내야 하기 때문에 매우 느리게 진행된다. 또한 규제는 광범위한 당사자들의 권리 의무 변화를 발생시키기 때문에, 이해관계자의 이익 충돌이 발생한다.

ㅇ (신산업 발전과 규제의 역할) 기술의 급속한 발전, 특히 인터넷과 디지털 통신 도구의 성장은 지식 산업 시대를 촉진하는 데 결정적인 역할을 했고 정보의 광범위한 가용성과 지식을 전 세계적으로 공유할 수 있는 능력은 사람들이 일하고 배우고 상호 작용하는 방식을 변화시켰다. 수많은 기술 회사가 설립되고 온라인 플랫폼이 성장했으며 지식 기반 제품 및 서비스를 중심으로 한 새로운 비즈니스 모델이 개발되었다.

- 전통적으로 정부의 규제 개입은 민간 시장의 실패를 교정하기 위한 최소한의 정부 개입으로 필요성이 인식되어 왔기 때문에, 적극적 역할보다는 심판자로서의 정부가 강조되었다. 하지만 최근 변화하는 기술 혁신은 시장에서 소비자를 보호하고, 사회 공익의 수호자로써 정부의 역할을 강조하는 실정이다.

- 최근 정보통신기술(Information and Communication Technology; ICT)의 발전과 함께 등장한 ICT 융합 산업이 최근 괄목할만한 성장을 보이고 있다. 하지만 우리나라의 현행 규제체계는 이러한 신산업에 적합하지 않다는 비판이 제기되고 있으며, 각기 다른 부처에서 관할하고 있는 상충된 규제들로 인해 애써 형성된 기술혁신이 시장에서 제대로 활용되지 못하고 있다는 우려도 많이 제기된다.

- 규제는 양면적 역할을 가지고 있다. OECD(1997)에 따르면, 규제란 정부 및 공공기관의 규칙 중 시장 및 경제 활동에 있어서 민간 행위자들의 의사결정 및 행동에 영향을 주는 것들을 통칭한다. 과거 규제란 정부가 추구하는 사회적 목표(Goal)를 달성하기 위한 수단으로써, 사회 전체의 효용을 극대화하기 위해 시장의 시장실패를 보완하고 사회 구성원간의 격차를 해소하는 등의 목적으로 정당화될 수 있었다. 다만 경제가 성장하고 산업 구조가 점차 고도화될수록 정체되는 성장 문제를 해소하기 위해 신기술, 혁신이라는 신성장 동력이 강조되었고, 규제를 혁신 정책의 일환으로 해석하고 활용하고자 하는 의견이 대두되었다 (Blind, 2016).

□ 기술혁신과 규제와의 갈등

ㅇ (문제 제기) 올바른 규제 정책은 민간 기술의 혁신을 유도하고 혁신성장 엔진을 구축하여 경제 성장을 이끌수 있다. 우리나라의 경우 기술 혁신을 통한 경제 성장의 중요성을 누차 강조하고 있지만, 불행히도 현행 규제체계에 대한 낮은 만족도를 보이고 있다.

- ICT 신산업에 대해 규제가 미치는 영향은 일관되게 나타지 않는다. 그 이유는 규제가 모든 사회 구성원에게 전체적인 영향을 미치기 때문이다. 다시말해 생산자인 기업에게 부담이자 비용으로만 효과를 발생시키는 것이 아니라, 소비자에게 안전성과 신뢰성을 제공하는 긍정적인 영향을 주고, 이는 시장 수요의 증대로 이어져 생산자에게도 긍정적 역할을 수행한다. 모든 생산과 소비 주체들은 정부의 규제 시행에 대해 상호작용을 통해 쌍방향으로 영향을 주고받고 그 결과는 복합적으로 파생된다는 사실을 알 수 있다.

ㅇ (규제갈등 사례 : 1. 스마트카 산업) 커넥티드카 또는 자율주행차라고도 불리는 스마트카는 안전성, 편의성, 효율성을 높이는 첨단 기술을 탑재하고 있다. 스마트 자동차 산업의 주요 특징은 연결성, 자율기능, 안전시스템, 친환경성, 모빌리티 공유 등으로 설명될 수 있다. 기본적으로 스마트 자동차는 인터넷 및 기타 장치에 연결되도록 설계되어 실시간 정보에 액세스하고 다른 차량과 통신하면서 주변 인프라와 상호 작용할 수 있다.

- 스마트카 산업에서 규제 갈등 이슈로 제기되는 것 중 하나로 주파수 문제가 있다. 스마트카는 크게는 자동차 제조와 통신 산업이 결합된 신기술이다. 우리나라의 경우 무선통신사업자는 할당된 주파수만을 활용할 수 있는 규제를 적용받는다. 미국⋅일본 등에서 스마트카 시범사업을 통해 활용되는 스마트카 주파수는 5.9GHz 영역대로써 이 주파수가 국제표준으로 자리잡아 가고 있지만, 우리나라의 경우 해당 대역은 스마트카 사업자들이 사용할 수 없는 상황이었다

- 두 번째는 안정성 규제 문제이다. 기존 자동차 제조업체는 일정수준 이상의 안전성을 인정받은 기술 만을 구입 또는 활용하도록 정부에서 세심하게 규제하고 있었고, 안전성 확보를 위해 기업들은 기술 개발에 활발히 투자하였다. 하지만 스마트카 산업에서는 안전성 확보의 주체가 누구인지 모호한 상황이다. 이로 인해 스마트카와 관련된 안전 기술의 개발을 오히려 지연시키는 요인으로 지적된다.

- 세 번째는 보안 관련 이슈이다. 당초 보완 관련 규제는 무선통신 업계에서 발생한 규제로써, 무분별한 개인정보 활용을 방지하고 개인의 인권을 보호하기 위해서 기업을 제제하기 위한 수단으로 도입되었다. 그러나 현재 스마트카 산업에 대해 해당 규제를 적용할 경우 자동차 제조업체 또는 통신사업자 중 누가 규제 대상자인지 모호하여 적용하기 어려운 상황이다. 이런 책임소재의 불분명함은 스마트카에 대한 일반 대중의 이미지를 부정적으로 전환 시킬 수 있으며, 잠재적 스마트카 구매 수요를 감소시키는 등 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있다.

ㅇ (규제갈등 사례 : 2. 헬스케어 산업) 디지털 헬스 또는 eHealth 산업으로도 알려진 ICT(정보 통신 기술) 헬스케어 산업은 헬스케어 부문에서 기술 및 정보 시스템을 적용하는 것을 말한다. 여기에는 의료 제공을 개선하고, 환자 치료를 개선하고, 운영을 간소화하고, 더 나은 건강 결과를 촉진하는 것을 목표로 하는 광범위한 기술, 서비스 및 솔루션이 포함된다

- 정식 의료기기는 오작동 또는 부작용이 심각한 의료사고를 야기시킬 수 있고, 환자의 생명에 심각한 위해를 가할 수 있기 때문에 비용과 시간이 많이 투자되더라도 철저한 안전성 검증을 통해 의료사고를 방지하기 위한 규제 목표가 있다. 하지만 일반 소비자가 간편히 자가진단을 하는 수준의 ICT 헬스케어 기기들도 정식 의료기기로 간주하는 것은 목표에 맞지 않는 과도한 규제로 볼 수 있다. 따라서 ICT 헬스케어 기기의 성격에 맞춘 간소화된 인증 평가를 거친 안전성 검증제도가 필요하다.

- ICT 신기술 시장은 매우 빠른 시간에 변화하고 성장하고 있다. 기존 규제절차를 모두 적용받을 경우, 세계시장에서 이미 경쟁 제품이 출시되어 선점되면 후발주자라는 매우 불리한 상황에서 제품을 출시해야 하는 난관에 부딛친다. 따라서 ICT 헬스케어 기기의 경우 그 기능과 제품 구매자에게 미치는 영향을 고려하여, 보다 간소화된 인증평가 시스템이 별도로 적용되야 한다.

- 신기술 평가와 인증 절차 역시 현행 엄격한 기술성 평가로 인해 지나치게 장기간의 심사가 소요되고, 그 기간 중 기업들은 높은 규제 비용과 시장출시 지연으로 인한 손해를 감수해야 한다. 심사를 고난도 서류 작업과 고비용의 시험비용 부담, 그리고 불확실한 평가결과는 기업에게 엄청난 부담으로, 현행 규제 장벽은 신규 기업의 진입을 방해하는 요소로 작용하고 있다.

ㅇ (규제갈등 사례 : 3. 핀테크 산업) Fintech 산업은 Financial Technology의 약자로 혁신적인 금융 상품과 서비스를 제공하기 위해 혁신적 신기술을 적용하는 것을 말한다. 핀테크 산업은 21세기 초 전통적인 금융 기관의 한계와 비효율성에 대한 대응으로 등장했다. 기존 금융 서비스에 대한 접근성, 편의성, 효율성 및 투명성을 높이는 것을 목표로 등장한 핀테크 산업은 인공 지능, 빅 데이터 분석, 블록체인 기술, 모바일 애플리케이션 및 클라우드 컴퓨팅과 같은 분야를 접목하여 디지털 결제, 모바일 뱅킹, P2P 대출, 블록체인 기술, 로보어드바이저 등과 같은 다양한 금융서비스를 개척했다.

- 혁신기술 또는 아이디어를 가지고 있는 소규모 자본의 ICT 기업은 금융기관이 되기 위해 장시간 자본금을 축적하기 위한 부담을 져야 하며, 이런 비용 부담으로 인해 추가적으로 혁신기업들의 핀테크 산업 진입을 저해된다.

- 은산분리 원칙은 핀테크 산업이 창업되면서 가장 큰 진입 제한 요인이 되고 있다. 핀테크 기업들은 금융기관이 아니며, 혁신 기술을 보유한 산업자본이 근간이 된다. 따라서 이들이 인터넷 은행을 운영하거나, 금융 서비스를 제공하는 것은 사실상 산업자본이 은행을 운영하는 결과로써 명백한 불법행위다. 하지만 국내에서만 은산분리를 근거로 핀테크 기업들의 진입을 금지해서는, 글로벌 기업들에게 국내 인터넷 자산거래 시장을 모두 빼앗기는 결과를 만들뿐이다. 따라서 최근에는 우리나라 뿐만 아니라 세계적으로 금산분리 규제를 완화하고 핀테크 금융활성화 방안들을 시행하고 있다.

□ 신산업과 규제혁신 방향

ㅇ (포괄적 네거티브 규제) 2010년 법제처는 국가경쟁력 강화위원회에서 ‘원칙적 허용 인허가 제도’을 도입하겠다고 발표했다. 이는 기존 ‘포지티브 규제방식’을 ‘네거티브 규제방식’으로 전환하겠다는 의지를 천명하였다. 이후 규제에 관한 일반법인 행정규제기본법을 개정하여 ‘원칙 허용, 예외적 금지 인허가 규제 방식’을 입법화하였다.

- 과거 포지티브 방식이 아닌 네거티브 원칙을 일반적인 규범 체계로 수용하는 것이 자유 보장 원칙을 천명하고 이에 대한 중요성을 강조한다는 측면에서는 매우 의미가 있다.

- 하지만 이보다 더 중요한 것은 특정 원리를 일반화하여 적용하는 것 보다, 개별적 규제 상황에 맞춰 규율할 수 있는 유연성일 것이다.

- 신기술 개발을 촉진하고 신성장 동력을 확보하기 위한 시장 형성을 위해 정부의 기존 규제 정비 및 재검토는 반드시 필요하지만, 기존 진입규제를 유연화 하거나 완화할 경우에는 이로 인해 발생할 수 있는 부작용과 위험성을 명백히 인식해야 한다.

ㅇ (포지티브 규제와 네거티브 규제) 포지티브 규제란 일정 요건을 충족할 경우 금지된 행위를 합법적으로 할 수 있게 허용하는 형태의 규제를 의미한다. 반면 네거티브 규제란 명문으로 규정된 불법행위가 아닌 법적 공백 영역은 합법으로 간주하는 형태의 규제방식이다.

- 포지티브 규제는 악이고, 네거티브 규제가 선인 그런 단순한 차원이 아니라, 각 규제 방식은 저마다 입법 체계와 규제 목적에 따라 필요성이 달라지기 때문에 이를 이해할 때 다양한 측면을 종합적으로 고려해야 한다 (Park. 2018).

- 정부와 시장의 역할에 대한 인식 정도 그리고 사회적 공익 또는 안전이 얼마나 중요한가에 대한 사회적 합의 정도에 따라 규제방식이 달라질 수 있다. 최근 우리나라에서 제기되는 네거티브 규제를 옹호하는 입장에서는 신기술과 신산업을 발전시키기 위해서 필수 요소로 제기되지만, 사실 포지티브 방식에서 규제 완화를 통해서도 신산업 발전이 가능하다는 입장도 제기되고 있다.

ㅇ (규제샌드박스)  규제 샌드박스는 제한된 범위에서 기존 규제를 유예하거나 면제해주어 신기술 사업자들이 기존 규제로 인해 받을 수 있는 불합리한 차별을 임시적으로 면제해주는 기능을 한다. 그러면서도 소비자 보호 및 사회적 안전성 확보를 위한 기존 규제는 유지하고, 사후에 발생하는 문제에 대해서 추가 규제 가능성을 열어두고 있다.

- 우리나라의 규제샌드박스는 신속확인, 임시허가와 실증특례로 구분된다. 또한 핀테크 산업에 집중하는 해외 사례와는 달리 우리나라는 ICT, 산업, 금융 분야에 규제샌드박스를 운영하고 있으며 규제 프리존의 성격을 가진 규제자유특구도 별도로 추진하고 있다.

□ 영국의 핀테크 규제혁신 사례와 시사점

ㅇ (배경) 영국 정부는 지난 2015년 금융 규제당국에서 핀테크 혁신기술의 발달과 확대를 위해서 창의적 테스트를 지원하는 방안으로 규제샌드박스를 도입하였다.

- 기존의 정보통신 기술로는 구현이 어려웠던 혁신상품과 서비스가 현실화되었으며, 인터넷의 급속한 확산은 기업과 소비자를 직접 매칭해주는 편의성을 갖추게 되었다. 기존의 정보통신 기술로는 구현이 어려웠던 혁신상품과 서비스가 현실화되었으며, 인터넷의 급속한 확산은 기업과 소비자를 직접 매칭해주는 편의성을 갖추게 되었다.

ㅇ (핀테크와 규제혁신) 영국 정부에서 제시한 금융혁신의 목표는, 세계에서 가장 영향력 있는 혁신적 금융시장을 조성하고 소비자들에게 다양한 선택권과 가치를 제공한겠다는 것이었다 (Young, 2016).

- 영국정부는 신기술을 갖춘 혁신 기업들을 성장시키기 위해서 규제 환경이 매우 중요하다고 언급한다. 다만 규제를 일방적으로 혁신을 방해하는 장애물로 인식하는 것은 아니며, 혁신을 촉진하는 방향으로 적정한 규제가 제시되어야 한다고 강조한다. 그들은 기존 기술 환경을 기초로 만들어진 규제들이 현재 신기술 산업에 적용되므로써 발생하는 불합리함을 인식하고, 혁신 기술의 특성을 고려한 규제 재설계를 추진했다.

- 영국 금융시장의 대표적 감독기구인 FCA는 핀테크 산업을 발전시키기 위해서 2014년‘Project innovation’을 추진키로 결정했다. 그들은 새로운 금융 서비스 개발을 지원하여 고객들에게 만족감을 제공하고, 기존 시장에 대한 경쟁을 촉진함으로써 연쇄적 기술 개발을 촉진하고자 하였다. 그리고 그 첫 걸음으로 Innovation Hub를 설립하고 기업들과 적극적으로 소통하기 시작하였다.

- 2015년 FCA는 핀테크 시장 활성화를 위해 금융분야에 대한 규제 샌드박스를 세계 최초로 도입하였다. FCA는 은행, 보험, 디지털 신분증, 블록체인, 지급결제 서비스 등 다양한 신기술 보유 혁신기업들을 규제샌드박스 기업으로 지정했다. 지리적으로도 영국에 국한하지 않고 싱가폴, 덴마크, 미국 등 다양한 성격을 띄고 있었다 (Young, 2016).

- 영국의 정부과학청에서 2015년에 공개한 핀테크 산업 발전 전략에서 규제 샌드박스와 함께 강조되었던 것이 ‘RegTech’이다. 규제 기술의 줄임말인 Regtech는 기술을 사용하여 기업이 직면한 규제 및 규정 준수 문제를 해결하는 것을 말한다. 인공 지능(AI), 기계 학습, 자연어 처리(NLP), 데이터 분석, 블록체인 및 클라우드 컴퓨팅과 같은 다양한 기술의 적용을 포함하여 규제 프로세스를 간소화하고 자동화하는 것을 의미한다. 영국 정부과학청이 제시하는 Regtech의 핵심은 핀테크 시장에서 소비자와 기업의 이익을 균형있게 보호하기 위해 효과적이고 혁신적인 규제제도가 중요하다는 것이다 (Government Office for Science, 2015).

- 영국의 규제혁신 사례에서 우리는 규제와 신기술이 반드시 대척점에 있는 관계가 아니라는 것을 알 수 있다. 규제는 악이며, 완화해야 하는 장애물이 아니라, 신기술 시장에서 정부가 제시하는 하나의 가이드라인과 컨설팅 기능을 수행한다. 또한 정부의 규제를 통해 잠재 기업의 기술 투자를 촉진시킬수 있고, 시장의 경쟁 촉진화와 소비자의 편익도 향상될 수 있다.

□ 결론

ㅇ 규제는 사회 질서를 수호하고 국민들의 안전을 보호하기 위해 도입되었다. 기업들에게 시장진입을 저해하는 장애물로 인식될 수 있지만, 규제가 기술혁신을 저해하는 관계라고만 볼수는 없다. 오히려 잘 설계된 규제의 경우, 기업의 법적 불안정성을 해소하여 기술개발을 더욱 촉진하고 이해관계자와 국민들의 신뢰를 높여 신기술 시장의 확대하고 발전시키는 역할을 수행할 수 있다.

ㅇ 우리나라는 최근 코로나 확산으로 인한 경제적 타격을 극복하고, 미래 성장동력으로써 작용할만한 신성장 엔진을 찾고 있다. 신성장 동력으로 가장 주목받는 기술이 바로 ICT 기술이며, 최근 ICT 융합 산업은 국내 뿐만 아니라 세계적으로 급속도로 발전하고 있는 시장이다. 따라서 우리나라 역시 지속 가능한 경제 성장을 위해 다양한 ICT 융합 산업 육성 전략을 수립하고 있다. 다만, 이런 다양한 육성 지원 방안만이 해결책이 될 수 없으며, 이와 함께 정부의 규제 정비 노력이 병행되어야 실질적인 육성 효과가 발생할 것이다.

ㅇ 신기술 융합 산업에 대한 이해도가 부족한 상황에서 기존 산업에 적용되는 규제가 그대로 적용되어 발생하는 과도한 규제 부담은 신규기업의 입장에서 가장 큰 문제점으로 지적된다. 이런 불합리함은 잠재적 진입 기업의 시장 진출 자체를 막아버리고 관련 기술 개발 및 연구를 지체키시는 원인이 된다. 따라서 정부에서는 신기술 시장의 특성을 올바르게 이해하고 산업을 진흥시킬 수 있는 적절한 규제 재설계가 필요할 것이다.

ㅇ 앞서 본 보고서에서 검토한 다양한 내용을 종합하여, 코로나 시대 신성장동력 확보를 위한 규제정비 방안으로 몇가지 정책적 제언을 하고자 한다.

- 첫 번째는 규제와 기술혁신에 대한 전통적인 긴장 관계적 관점에서 벗어나, 기술혁신을 유도하는 규제로써 재설계를 추진하고 보다 유연한 적용을 통해 기술개발을 촉진해야 한다는 것이다.

- 두 번째는 융합산업 기술 발전과 보다 혁신적인 서비스와 제품 출시를 지원하기 위해 적극적인 우선 허용과 사후 규제 원칙을 적극 활용해야 한다는 점이다.

- 세 번째는 규제 정비과정에서 소비자 안전 등 사회적 공익을 충실히 보호해야 한다는 것이다.

- 마지막으로 규제 정비과정을 투명하게 공개하고, 이해관계자들을 절차에 참여시켜야 한다는 점이다.

ㅇ 규제의 무조건적인 완화 또는 철폐가 올바른 것은 아니며 새로운 기술의 특성을 고려한 적절한 규제 재설계가 필요하다. 적절한 규제 정비를 통해, 신산업은 육성될 수 있으며 사회적 편익이 확대될 수 있을 것이다.

4. 훈련결과보고서 (영문)

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

(1) Relationship between Regulation and Tech inovation

(2) Regulation’s role and New industry

3. Conflict between technological innovation and regulation

(1) Smart car

(2) eHealth care

(3) FinTech

4. New industry growth through regulatory innovation

5. Cases and Implications of Fintech Regulatory Innovation in the UK

6. Conclusions

1. Introduction

Regulations are meant to protect the people and protect the public interest. So what is the public interest? Public interests that can be commonly thought of include tangible goals such as economic growth, but there are also goals such as environmental protection or public health and safety, which are desirable goals for society even though they are non-economic. Entering the 21st century, information and communication technology is developing day by day, and this ICT development is combined with various fields such as finance, energy, medical care, and education, which are existing industries, and new industries are developing rapidly. New technology innovation generates economic benefits and broad synergistic effects, so countries around the world are scrambling to lead the development of their own new industries. However, not all new technology growth produces desirable outcomes. Rather, unexpected side effects may occur in the safety, health, and environment of the people and cause damage to consumers. New technology is not a promised dream. The state sometimes has an obligation to protect the safety and life of its citizens from new technologies. In order to achieve both the goals of profit from new industries and the pursuit of the public interest of protecting the people, the state must maintain regulation at an effective and appropriate level. Also, it should not be forgotten that excessive regulation hinders economic innovation. Therefore, there is a lot of discussion about what is the appropriate level of regulation for the development of new industries and new technologies.

Existing studies on the relationship between regulation and innovation suggest that regulation motivates innovation investment, serves as a goal for innovation (Blind, 2012; Porter and van der Linde, 1995), and reduces market uncertainty (Blind, 2012; Stewart, 2010) promotes innovation when improving the value of goods and services (Munos, 2009), but weakens competition by protecting existing markets (Alesina, Ardagna and Nicoletti, 2005) It is said that innovation is hindered when innovation development incentives are lowered due to increased cost burden (Barbosa and Faria, 2011) and licensing and review procedures (Vernon, 2009).

Since its launch, the Moon Jae-in administration has announced that it will fundamentally shift the regulatory reform paradigm by fully introducing comprehensive negative regulations to new industries in response to rapid environmental changes due to the development of convergence and new technologies (Office of Government Policy Coordination, 2017). Comprehensive negative is an extension of the existing negative list, which allows in principle and prohibits exceptionally (permissible in principle-prohibited exception), “various legislative methods and innovations for a system that allows the launch of new products and services first and regulates them when necessary. It meant “comprehensive of the system” (Joint of related ministries, 2017).

In this report, we examine the theoretical relationship between innovation and regulation in the new industry sector in order to take a look at leading innovation in the new digital industry sector, and regulatory innovation in smart car, healthcare, and fintech fields, which are evaluated as the most important post-COVID-19 areas. Let's look at examples. In addition, the case of regulatory innovation in major countries such as the UK and China will be compared with that of Korea, and desirable regulatory innovation measures will be explored.

2. Literature review

(1) Relationship between regulation and technological innovation

From the existing economic point of view, regulation is a law and institution that affects individuals and companies in the market in order to respond to public interest demands to compensate for market failure phenomena such as monopolies, information insufficiencies, negative externalities, and tragedies of public goods. means (Francis, 1993). From the definition of these regulations, especially in new technologies, even though regulations originally had no direct purpose to impede innovation or delay technology development, they minimize negative effects that may occur due to new technologies and ensure safety, efficiency, and fairness. In the process of protection, innovation may be stifled (Liu, Kauffman, and Ma, 2015). In China, the People's Bank of China announced regulations that hinder Tencent and Alibaba's virtual credit card business due to reliability issues with Quickscan QR codes that support innovation in mobile payment services (Zhao and Xie, 2014).

However, even though the government's regulation has achieved the purpose of public protection, it acts as an obstacle to innovation in the private sector, which has the effect of lowering overall innovation. One study points out that as governments regulate hazardous substances, companies reduce their use of toxic products, which has led to lower new product development (Ollinger and Fernandezcomejo, 1999). They report that the public benefit from avoiding the risk of toxicity is lower than the benefit from the introduction of innovative new products. In addition, government regulations cause companies to focus on research to reduce toxicity rather than new product development, which prevents innovations that can have a positive impact on other areas from being born. Research from a traditional economics perspective argues that requiring compliance from firms in an optimal state of cost minimization negatively impacts innovation by burdening them with compliance costs (Ambec, Cohen, Elgie and Lanoie, 2013).

If there are regulations on products, they increase start-up costs in the process of regulatory compliance, hindering the entry of firms, which reduces innovation (Barbosa and Faria, 2011). In an analysis of the US pharmaceutical industry, it is reported that when the FDA's new drug approval review period is shortened by 10%, companies increase R&D costs by 1-2% (Vernon, Golec, Lutter, and Nardinelli, 2009). Through this, it can be seen that hurdles such as government regulatory review and approval for new products or new technology services negatively affect the development of technological innovation in the private sector.

In addition, research results are also reported that companies fearing a deterioration in the profitability of products drastically reduce their investment just because the government announces a bill to regulate related product prices (Golec, Hegde, and Vernon, 2010). Since government regulations suggest a minimum level of quality that companies must comply with, if product contents are changed through new technologies or technological innovations, there is a possibility that the level of government regulation will ironically increase and companies' profitability will deteriorate. In other words, government intervention can make certain technological innovations reluctant because they change market conditions and thereby cause negative behavior by firms (Liu, Kauffman, and Ma, 2015). In addition, companies that have to pass government quality tests in order to sell will strive to develop products that meet current regulatory levels, making them complacent rather than innovative (Blöndal, and Pilat, 1997).

Research results suggest that 60 to 99% more new telecommunication services are launched when regulations are relaxed to the level of allowing provisional permission for previously unlicensed areas (Prieger, 2002). Regulations can be interpreted as preventing the launch of new private goods or services.

In addition, regulation can form a kind of hyper-monopolism by hindering market entry and hindering private competition. Companies that are protected from government regulation have a reduced incentive to develop new products and services, and a reduced incentive to invest in R&D, which has a negative impact on innovation in the long run. In fact, one study points out that European companies, which have been protected by the state, tend to avoid R&D investment more than American companies in a free competition system (Alesina, Ardagna and Nicoletti, 2005). As a specific example, in the case of the aviation industry in Europe, government regulations have made it virtually difficult for new companies to enter the market, and existing companies have no incentive to operate efficiently because there are no competitors. As a result, it is argued that the productivity of incumbent firms has decreased and technological innovation has been impeded (Baily, Gordon, and Bresnahan, 1993).

But regulation doesn't just hinder technological innovation. When effectively implemented, regulation can actually have a positive impact on technological innovation. Although it may seem counterintuitive at first, well-designed regulations can create an environment that promotes innovation and drives technological progress in several ways, including: It is also argued that regulation promotes technological innovation. A typical example is the ‘compensation for technological innovation’ caused by regulation. In order to comply with government regulations, companies innovate locally, which gives them a technological edge over foreign companies that are not regulated. In the short term, companies have to pay for technology development to comply with regulations, but in the long run, it is argued that all or part of this cost can be compensated (Porter and van der Linde, 1995).

Similarly, it is argued that the mere presence of social regulations to achieve the public good leads to innovation to comply with them (Blind, 2012). In summary, government regulation presents future-oriented goals, and in order to reach them, management or technological innovation is induced in private companies, which can be interpreted as having positive effects on society as a whole. From a long-term perspective, governments can drive technological innovation towards long-term goals such as environmental protection. By setting targets and requirements, for example for renewable energy, waste management or carbon emissions, industry is encouraged to develop innovative solutions to meet these targets, which in turn lead to more sustainable and environmentally friendly new technologies, business models and practices. can lead to creation.

In addition to social regulation, economic regulation that promotes competition can provide incentives for innovative investment to companies to enter the market. Regulations can promote fair competition by setting standards that all market participants must adhere to. This prevents monopoly practices and encourages smaller players to enter the market, promoting innovation and diversity. When there are clearer rules and a level playing field, the potential arises for startups and smaller firms to advance innovation and disruptive technologies by competing with incumbents.

Even in the case of institutional regulations such as intellectual property rights, companies that have succeeded in technological innovation are granted monopoly rights for a certain period of time, which incentivizes them to develop innovative new technologies. Clear and consistent regulations provide stability and predictability in the market. This stability encourages companies to invest in research and development (R&D) activities and technological innovation. When companies have confidence in the regulatory framework, they take risks and dare to develop new technologies, which leads to overall industrial technology development. In the case of the pharmaceutical sector, which is a heavily regulated industry, companies innovate in the process of meeting regulatory objectives, resulting in competitive product development and a unique position in the market.

Social regulations that take on the character of a social safety net focus on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, businesses and the environment. By setting these standards and guidelines, regulations can promote the development of innovative technologies that prioritize safety and minimize risk. In the automotive industry, for example, regulations on emissions and crash safety have encouraged the development of electric vehicles and advanced driver assistance systems. According to the perspective of dividing regulations into three criteria: flexibility, informativeness, and coercion, if regulations are set flexibly so that companies can decide how to comply with regulations, companies will find the most efficient way, and in this process, companies will be burdened. As this decreases, the possibility of innovation increases (Stewart, 2010). In addition, in the process of obtaining government approval according to regulations, consumers can be provided with information, which alleviates the problem of information asymmetry. Confidence among consumers increases, which gives producers the opportunity to introduce the value of their products to the public and incentivizes them to enter innovation more competitively. Regulations of a compulsory nature can also remove uncertainty for firms and generate incremental innovation.

Several regulations also aim to protect consumers from unfair practices, fraudulent products or harmful technologies. When consumers are confident in the safety and reliability of a technology, they are more likely to adopt and embrace it. This societal trust and acceptance creates an environment conducive to innovation, as companies have ready markets for new products and services. Regulations can encourage collaboration among industry players, researchers and government agencies. By defining common standards, the regulations promote interoperability and compatibility between different technologies, enabling seamless integration and evolution. It can also promote shared progress and innovation by encouraging the sharing of research findings and knowledge. In Europe, thanks to the European Commission making all electronic payments via credit cards, debit cards, bank transfers and direct debits a service that is as efficient as being serviced within one country by regulating the whole of Europe as a market and servicing it. A payment market for all was created, stimulating service innovation (European Commission, 2012). However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of regulation in stimulating innovation depends on its design and implementation. It is important to strike a balance that allows for flexibility, adaptability and continuous improvement, as overly burdensome or outdated regulations can stifle innovation. It should also not be forgotten that effective regulation should encourage innovation while being nimble, responsive to technological advances and solving social problems.

It is also suggested that there is no clear basis for whether regulation actually stimulates innovation in companies. It is argued that strong government environmental regulations have increased firms' R&D expenditures, but have no clear relationship to the creation of patents (Jaff and Palmer, 1997). Clearly, government regulations play a role in inducing innovation by presenting targets for technology development to companies, but scholars have not yet concluded whether this ultimately has a positive impact on the public interest. As explained earlier, R&D certainly induces the development of new products or services, but there are aspects that are difficult to quantitatively analyze when considering the costs and benefits that are initially invested in R&D.

This can also be seen as a matter of choice. As the cost that companies invest for regulatory compliance matches the direction they pursue, it can be interpreted as a positive role in innovative change. However, even if it does not match the direction that the company pursues, if the intentional R&D invested to comply with the regulation increases consumer convenience and helps to achieve social public interest, there is room for interpretation that the regulation at this time supported the company's innovative activities. . Rather, despite consumer demand for new products and services, maintaining existing regulations tailored to the previous ecosystem can harm social safety or negatively affect corporate growth in the long run. Therefore, regulation should not stay at a certain level and be maintained, but change in response to social demands and changes in the technological environment. Regarding the relationship between regulation and technology, Gerard and Lave (2005) present an interesting opinion. He explains that the innovative growth of companies declined from 1960 to 1975, when the government announced strong regulations, but rather, technology development actively increased after 1980. In an uncertain market situation, companies invest money in technology development to comply with government regulations, which stimulates technological innovation, and companies that reach a certain level are protected according to government regulations and can acquire a certain monopoly status. It can play a role in stimulating innovation. And after such a stable market system is established, the entry of new companies is blocked, and the will of existing companies to innovate may decrease. Thus, the relationship between regulation and innovation is one in which the dynamics continuously change over time depending on the degree of technological development and demand in the market.

In this respect, there is a skeptical view that the government will continue to adequately present the level of regulatory targets. In a bureaucratic system, the government can be insensitive to market demands and environmental changes. Therefore, on the premise that regulation helps strengthen the competitiveness of businesses, an appropriate regulatory target should be induced by businesses, not the government (Ambec, Cohen, Elgie and Lanoie, 2013). Looking at the existing studies, it can be seen that there are two important aspects of the relationship between regulation and technological innovation. The first is whether an appropriate level of regulation has been presented. The second is whether or not the regulation continues to change. Good regulation should reflect market needs and the technological environment, and should be revised over time to continuously reflect feedback. Current regulations that promote technological innovation are not forever positive. Regulations that have been stagnant for a long time, despite their positive role, may now serve only as a social impediment to innovation.

The focus of existing academic research has been on whether regulation is positive or negative for technological innovation. However, it is pointed out that regulation and innovation should be viewed as a mutual relationship between the two rather than being defined as a one-way and linear relationship, and that a leading and active role must be played in the mutual relationship (Paraskevopoulou, 2012). Therefore, when studying the relationship between regulation and innovation, it is supported by the opinion that technological and environmental changes should be taken into account, and that even regulatory changes should be analyzed together (Flanagan and Laranja, 2011).

Regulation is not simply a product of administration; rather, it is more like a social convention. Regulations, once enacted, bind all members of society and create legal relationships that bring about changes in rights and obligations. Therefore, it will be necessary to review the relationship between technology and regulation from a legal point of view. In the field of law, attention is paid to the phenomenon of ‘void’ in the relationship between technological innovation and regulation (Kim, 2014). Economic growth and increased social benefits due to new technologies are positive aspects of innovation, but there are certainly dark shadows. There may be side effects such as safety and harm that consumers may experience. To compensate for this, the government changes regulations in response to technological advances. However, it is very difficult to clearly recognize this relationship from the beginning of technological development. The process of predicting what benefits and side effects a specific technology will generate requires a very large amount of information and analysis. In addition, as described above, since regulations once enacted generate legal effects that bind all members of society, the process of revising regulations is very complex and sensitive, requiring analysis based on facts by collecting all relevant information. Go through the process. This process can never be done quickly. Market technology changes day by day, but information collection and analysis for legislation, and fact-checking, proceed very slowly because it is necessary to predict the future and find necessary rules through a long process. In addition, since regulation causes changes in the rights and obligations of a wide range of parties, conflicts of interest of stakeholders occur. In order to create regulations, regulatory authorities must judge and adjust the interests of which interest groups should take precedence. Therefore, from a dynamic point of view, there is also an opinion that regulations should first change according to the speed of technological innovation, and go through the process of fine-tuning through trial and error that occurs in this process (Kirchner, 2011).

To address the regulatory vacuum, a future forecasting method called a deferment of prosecution agreement is sometimes proposed (Kaal, 2016). The indictment deferment agreement is a way for regulators to suspend prosecution of illegal acts and to receive specific information in real time to resolve the delay in regulation based on this. The information and analysis gathered in this way can also help set goals for regulatory change over the long term. With a similar perspective, a legislative technique called experimental clauses is proposed (Kim, 2014). The experimental clause is a method in which products and services using new technologies or legal actions are considered legal for a certain period of time, and the rules are changed ex post according to market reactions. This approach can be interpreted as a way of responding to uncertain future situations, acknowledging technological advances, and endorsing legal regulations. However, it is difficult to be free from the problem that the government continues to abuse the authority and the illegal status as illegal situations are temporarily regarded as legal by the government.

(2) New industry development and role of regulation

In the second half of the 20th century, the world is in the midst of a great transition to a knowledge-based economy against the background of the remarkable development of information and communication technology. Therefore, it is difficult to specify the exact time, but there will be no big problem if we assume that the foundation of the knowledge industry was laid in the latter half of the 20th century. “Knowledge industries” means sectors and activities primarily dealing with the creation, dissemination and application of knowledge, and includes such industries as technology, research and development, education, consulting, publishing and various professional services. Rapid advances in technology, particularly the growth of the Internet and digital communication tools, have been crucial in spurring the knowledge industrial era, and the widespread availability of information and the ability to share knowledge globally is changing the way people work, learn, and interact. changed The 1990s marked an important turning point as the Internet became more accessible to the general public, leading to the rise of the digital economy and knowledge-intensive sectors. During this period, numerous technology companies were founded, online platforms grew, and new business models centered around knowledge-based products and services developed.

Since then, the knowledge industry has continued to evolve and expand with the continued advancement of technology and the increasing importance of intellectual capital in the global economy. It has become a key driver of economic growth, innovation and social progress in many countries around the world. New and creative products and business models are being formed through the convergence of existing industries and innovative new technologies, centered on advanced countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, and China and India, which are backed by a wide range of markets. The newly formed new technology market is developing into a long-term economic growth engine. In Korea, too, in a situation where new demand is created and new economic growth engines are desperately needed to break away from the existing industrial structure, a boom is blowing that emphasizes innovation in new technologies by concentrating their capabilities around the government and private large corporations. However, despite the emphasis on the importance of technological innovation, various problems arise, such as conflicts caused by existing regulations on new products and markets and consumer damage due to a regulatory vacuum.

Traditionally, the government's regulatory intervention has been recognized as a necessity to correct the failures of the private market, so the government as a judge rather than an active role has been emphasized. However, recent technological innovations are emphasizing the government's role as a guardian of the public interest and protecting consumers in the market. The government also plays a role in inducing private technology investment and fostering industries that are competitive in the global market. The government can motivate companies for creative technological innovation through regulation, and form a market through this to increase the private sector's benefits. On the other hand, regulations may stifle economic innovation by dampening the will to develop creative technologies or hindering the formation of a private market. As such, regulation plays a dual role.

Recently, the ICT convergence industry, which emerged with the development of information and communication technology (ICT), is showing remarkable growth. In the financial sector, internet banking and fintech industries emerged by combining the internet and mobile phone technology. In medical and education, ICT healthcare and telemedicine are being activated, and distance education is no longer an unfamiliar term in the education world. However, criticism is being raised that the current regulatory system in Korea is not suitable for these new industries, and many point out that technological innovation, which has been laboriously formed due to conflicting regulations administered by different ministries, is not properly utilized in the market. As explained earlier, regulation has a dual role. It can be poison or it can be medicine. According to OECD (1997), regulation refers to the rules of government and public institutions that affect the decision-making and behavior of private actors in market and economic activities. In the past, regulation was a means to achieve social goals pursued by the government, and could be justified for the purpose of supplementing market failures and narrowing the gap between members of society in order to maximize the utility of society as a whole. However, as the economy grew and the industrial structure gradually advanced, new growth engines such as new technology and innovation were emphasized to solve the problem of stagnant growth, and opinions to interpret and utilize regulations as part of innovation policies emerged (Blind, 2016).

They explain that through regulatory policy, the results of technological innovation can be diffused to the market and more desirable technological innovation can be induced. The government's role as an active player is emphasized beyond the intervention of the existing passive market failure. However, as described above, in order to play such an active role, extensive data collection and future predictive analysis through it are required, and the government's superior ability must be premised. The government needs to predict a desirable future for technological innovation, analyze various interests, and mediate them, but it is not an easy problem in reality.

Research continued on how regulations affect private investment in the formation of new industries. In general, regulation is recognized as a burden or cost to companies, and depending on the direction and intensity of regulation, changes may occur in companies' investment decisions or market formation. However, opinions were raised that emphasized the role of presenting guides in addition to these cost-effective functions. In other words, the government proposes new regulations to induce changes in the behavior of the private sector. Of course, it is mentioned in most of the studies that the effect of the existing cost aspect is greater.

If privatization or competition-oriented regulations are introduced to facilitate entry into existing monopolistic markets, private sector investment can be encouraged (Alesina et al., 2005). In the case of the telecommunications industry, which is an infrastructure industry that requires large-scale capital investment, the telecommunications facilities and technologies possessed by companies are very important, and it is explained that the investment motivation of existing companies decreases when there are entry regulations (Grajek and Roller, 2012). Grajek and Roller (2012) studied the relationship between investment incentives and regulations between first movers and latecomers for fixed-line telephone operators in 20 countries. confirmed that this is decreasing. It also explains that total investment by new entrants will increase in the absence of regulation. When examining the impact of regulations on foreign direct investment (FDI) in OECD countries, countries that actively enforce anti-competition regulations had less investment than those that did not (Nicoletti and Scarpetta, 2003). . From their research results, they estimate that if regulations are eased, as in the case of the UK, which has a low level of entry regulation among OECD countries, more than 10% of the total FDI in the OECD will increase. On the other hand, research results suggest that government deregulation has a negative impact on investment (Griffith and Harrison, 2004).

As mentioned above, there have been many studies on the effect of regulation on R&D investment and technological innovation, but no unified consensus has been reached. To summarize once again, in general, regulation can act as a factor that hinders investment by increasing costs and burdens for companies, but it can also have a positive effect on investment depending on the nature of regulation and the market environment. In the case of the ICT convergence industry, there are completely different characteristics such as technology and business model from existing industries. In fact, there are not many studies on the interrelationship between the ICT industry and the convergence industry using ICT technology and regulations. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the results of research on the direction of regulation and investment pointed out in the existing literature in a lump sum. However, according to the results of existing cases and empirical analysis, focusing on the fact that an appropriate level of regulation induces innovation in new technologies, including ICT, what regulations should be prepared when the government actively induces technological innovation. In the next chapter, we will look at what role it is desirable to play in earnest.

3. Conflict between technological innovation and regulation

As explained earlier, the right regulatory policies can lead to economic growth by encouraging innovation in private technology and building innovative growth engines. In Korea, the importance of economic growth through technological innovation is repeatedly emphasized, but unfortunately, the level of satisfaction with the current regulatory system is low. According to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, which compares and announces the level of technological infrastructure and technological regulation in each country, Korea's technological infrastructure ranking was ranked 8th in 2014, but the degree of support for innovation due to technological regulation was low at 30th. (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Planning and Evaluation, 2015). Through this indicator, it is possible to get a glimpse of how companies in the field feel that innovation is being hindered by government regulations. According to the Korea Development Institute (2015), 55.3% of 300 companies belonging to the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry responded that the level of government regulation is high. It is reported that 47.5% of companies in new industries responded that they had difficulties due to government regulations.

So, why does this discrepancy appear? Many experts point out that this is due to the government's failure to properly respond to changes in new technologies and new industrial environments. Since the currently established regulatory system was enacted according to the industrial structure of the past, if the existing regulations are applied to the convergence industry using the latest ICT technology, the development and utilization of the technology will be prohibited. In order to support new attempts and creative technologies, current regulations do not reflect the changed environment. In the past, linear and continuous economic activities mainly occurred in the traditional industrial structure, but in the recent convergence industry, the process of technology development, commercialization, and market activation is not linear, but is linked by node, and is performed simultaneously through mutual feedback. In this process, previously unexpected convergence and innovation are created, and an industrial structure based on knowledge and ideas, rather than existing capital and facility investment, is being created. Accordingly, the market strategy also prioritizes winning a leading position in new technologies, and companies that fail to follow suit fall behind. This phenomenon can be confirmed by looking at the rapidly changing broadcasting and communication industry. Broadcasting and communication companies, which were safely protected by government entry regulations based on huge capital and communication facilities in the past, have not been able to adapt to technological innovations such as platform diversification using Internet MOT technology, and new services such as YouTube and Netflix have encroached on the existing market and created new There is even a delay in market creation.

Regulations can be divided into economic, social, and institutional regulations (Blind, 2016). Regulations on competition, entry, and prices in the existing market are defined as economic regulations, and norms on non-economic areas such as the environment, labor, and safety are referred to as social regulations. In addition, there are institutional regulations on employment relations and intellectual property rights such as patents. Looking at the application of these three concepts to the ICT convergence industry, in order for new ICT convergence industry products or services to emerge, new companies are required to pay entry costs due to economic regulations that restrict competition or entry (Alesina et al., 2005; Klapper et al., 2006). This leads to a decrease in the price competitiveness of new products and makes uncertain demand more difficult to predict. From the perspective of a company that hopes to potentially enter the market, the burden increases, and the possibility of giving up entry increases because competitiveness in the market decreases. This lowers the degree of competition in the market, and reduces the capital investment of incumbents (Grajek and Roller, 2012) and sluggish R&D investment (Crafts, 2006). Second, let's review from the social regulation point of view. In order to protect the safety of private consumers for new ICT technologies, a certain level of technology regulation is applied. To reach the regulatory level, potential producers of new technologies are forced to spend on relevant safety-related R&D, and research or investment in key technologies is reduced. Of course, the government's introduction of safety regulations for new ICT technology also has a positive effect of increasing consumers' confidence in the product or service (Newell et al, 1999). Consumer acceptance of new products and services increases, which reduces market uncertainty for potential suppliers and helps stimulate consumer demand in the actual market. As a result, market entry by potential suppliers is facilitated, market competition is invigorated, and physical capital investment by existing companies is increased. This activates the overall market, triggering economies of scale and lowering unit production costs, resulting in a drop in product prices (Albano and Nicholas, 2016). In addition, consumers also receive a positive signal that they can consume more safely through market activation, and consumption increases in a virtuous cycle. Overall, market activation through new technologies increases new investment by companies and accelerates the pace of innovation (Krzyzanowski et al., 2008). In conclusion, just by providing an appropriate level of social regulation for new technology by the government, the speed of technological innovation by companies is improved, and as a result, through product and service price declines, consumer preference is gradually increasing and the market It also has the effect of lowering uncertainty, creating a virtuous cycle structure that activates the entire market.

As discussed above, the effect of regulation on the new ICT industry is not consistent. The reason is that regulation has a holistic effect on all members of society. In other words, it does not create effects only as a burden and cost for producers, but also has a positive effect on providing safety and reliability to consumers, which leads to an increase in market demand and plays a positive role for producers as well. It can be seen that all producers and consumers interact with the government's regulatory enforcement in both directions, and the results are derived in a complex way.

The ICT convergence industry has a different technology and business model from existing industries. As a representative ICT convergence new technology, the fintech industry is a combination of information and communication technology and the financial industry. The fintech industry has both the characteristics of both the finance and telecommunication industries, but also has new characteristics. Therefore, a difficult problem arises as to how to apply the existing telecommunications and financial industries. Korea's regulatory policy is differentiated by industry. All companies are defined by industry according to the nature of the services and products they produce, and separate standards applicable to each industry are regulated. In addition, the departments in charge are also strictly distinguished, and the work areas are divided so that there is no overlap between departments. Therefore, regulatory conflicts and conflicts of interest between departments are occurring in the ICT convergence industry.

We have already seen that the impact of government regulations on markets can be either positive or negative. As mentioned above, since regulation affects all members of society, it has both positive and negative effects on technological innovation and the formation of new technology markets depending on the implementation path. Therefore, if the positive impact outweighs the negative impact, it will be in the form of promoting technological innovation, and if the negative impact is greater, regulatory conflicts that delay technological innovation will appear. Afterwards, we will take a closer look at the negative effects of regulations in new industries, that is, examples of regulatory conflicts, and seek policy directions to resolve conflicts.

(1) Smart car

The smart car industry refers to an entire industry focused on the development, production and deployment of intelligent, connected vehicles. Smart cars, also called connected cars or self-driving cars, are equipped with cutting-edge technologies that increase safety, convenience, and efficiency. The main characteristics of the smart car industry can be described as connectivity, autonomous functions, safety systems, eco-friendliness, and shared mobility. Essentially, smart cars are designed to connect to the internet and other devices, allowing them to interact with the surrounding infrastructure while accessing real-time information and communicating with other vehicles. In other words, a vehicle capable of features such as GPS navigation, remote vehicle diagnostics, over-the-air updates, and integration with smartphones and other smart devices. Also, smart cars often incorporate autonomous or self-driving technologies. Smart vehicles utilize sensors, cameras, radar and advanced software algorithms to perceive the surrounding road environment and make the best driving decisions on their own without direct human intervention. These self-driving technologies are seen as having the potential to revolutionize transportation by improving road safety, reducing traffic congestion and enhancing the mobility of individuals who cannot drive. Smart cars are often developed as electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid vehicles. Finally, smart cars also include services such as ridesharing, car sharing and on-demand transportation. Companies in the smart car industry are seeking new business models that provide convenient and flexible transportation solutions through the integration of smart cars, connectivity and mobility platforms. As such, the smart automobile industry is currently leading the development of cutting-edge technologies and is evaluated as an industry with the potential to lead innovation and economic growth through technological cooperation with traditional automobile manufacturers.

One of the issues raised as a regulatory conflict issue in the smart car industry is the frequency issue. A smart car is a new technology that largely combines automobile manufacturing and the telecommunications industry. In Korea, wireless communication service providers are subject to regulations that allow them to use only allocated frequencies. The smart car frequency used through smart car pilot projects in the U.S. and Japan is in the 5.9 GHz area, and this frequency is becoming an international standard. 2016). Frequency regulation was originally introduced to achieve policy goals for efficient management of various telecommunications operators and establishment of a systematic wireless communication service industry. However, smart cars acted as an obstacle to new industries converged with the automobile manufacturing industry. This problem was resolved in 2017 when the government improved regulations so that the frequency band could be used for smart cars. The government has also taken measures to allow other frequency bands to be used for trial runs of smart and self-driving cars.

The second is the issue of stability regulation. Existing automobile manufacturers were meticulously regulated by the government to purchase or use only technologies that were recognized for a certain level of safety, and companies actively invested in technology development to secure safety. However, in the smart car industry, it is ambiguous who is responsible for ensuring safety. This is pointed out as a factor that rather delays the development of safety technologies related to smart cars. The third is a security related issue. Originally, regulations related to supplementation were regulations that occurred in the wireless communication industry, and were introduced as a means to restrain companies in order to prevent indiscriminate use of personal information and protect individual human rights. However, when applying the regulation to the current smart car industry, it is difficult to apply because it is ambiguous who is subject to regulation among car manufacturers or telecommunications operators. Such unclear responsibilities can negatively affect the general public's image of smart cars, and can have negative effects such as reducing potential smart car purchase demand. In addition, restrictions on location information collection limit the most essential function of smart cars, lowering the will of companies engaged in the field to develop technology, and resulting in the technology of domestic companies falling behind compared to other countries. However, drastically easing location information collection regulations for the smart car industry is not the answer. In the case of security issues, it can have a direct impact on consumers and have a negative impact on purchases, leaving room for the industry to shrink. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively examine the positive and negative effects of deregulation, and separately review the appropriate level of restriction on collection of customized location information for the smart car industry rather than uniformly easing regulations on existing industries for new industries. Governments must increase market demand through careful design of regulations so that consumers can use new technology products and services with confidence. In addition, from the producer's point of view, a regulatory level that provides active incentives for investment should be presented so that new technology development with global competitiveness can be achieved.

In the case of frequency allocation regulation, government regulation is a precondition for the formation of the smart car market. As such, in the case of a new technology industry where the market has not already been formed, it affects the entry decision of potential companies, so the company's initial technology development decision and the impact on additional R&D investment may appear differently, and step-by-step regulatory improvement is needed taking this into account. . Also, the purpose of regulation should not be forgotten. In the case of frequency regulation, since it is a regulation for efficient management of frequency operators while preventing indiscriminate entry into business sites to some extent, a plan to temporarily allow market entry by new technologies can be effective. Issues regarding safety regulations can be divided into the problem of responsibility in the event of a traffic accident by customers using smart cars and the technical regulations to secure the safety of the vehicle body. Responsibility for traffic accidents that may occur while driving smart cars is an issue that directly affects demand for consumers. Unlike ordinary cars, smart cars are very unlikely to cause traffic accidents due to driver error. Rather, it can be seen that it is highly likely to occur due to errors in the program of the vehicle manufacturer. Nevertheless, in the current regulatory system, there is no way to hold vehicle manufacturers or program developers accountable in the event of a traffic accident. Due to the absence of related regulations, there is a possibility that consumers who purchase a smart car will lose money and have to pay additional risk-bearing costs compared to purchasing a conventional car, so the possibility of reluctance to purchase a smart car is significantly increased. Therefore, if the responsibility and handling cost ratio in the event of a smart car traffic accident are clarified to the current regulatory level through government regulations, the uncertainty of information that consumers may bear can be resolved. This is also a way to improve consumers' awareness of smart cars and increase their reliability. In fact, there is an opinion that it is necessary to revise or establish a new law on civil and criminal liability for accidents that occur when using a smart car that reflects the specificity of smart cars compared to existing cars (Kye, 2017).

A smart car is a vehicle with a completely different concept from conventional cars. Consumers have extremely limited information about this new vehicle and have low confidence in its safety. This information asymmetry situation lowers consumer demand and negatively affects the formation of the smart car market. There will be very few customers who take high risks and purchase smart cars even though they can stably consume existing vehicles. In addition, from the manufacturer's point of view, it is unclear what level of technology should be developed to develop smart cars to be stably supplied in the market. In other words, since new technologies do not have the safety level required to be distributed in the market, suppliers cannot estimate the cost of technology development that they must invest in, which can lead to a decrease in R&D investment. Therefore, both consumers and suppliers can escape from the uncertainty of information just by announcing technical safety regulations that reflect the characteristics of smart cars by the government, which can help form and activate the market through increased investment and consumption. In the past, even in the case of electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles, the government first provided information to the market by preparing safety technology regulations and various regulations tailored to electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles. In addition, the government provided various subsidies to consumers when purchasing electric and hydrogen vehicles to boost demand, and companies with expectations for stable demand were able to invest more actively in the development of electric and hydrogen vehicle technologies. In addition, the government's measures increased consumers' confidence in new technologies, which led to an increase in market demand. According to the 2022 Consumer Reports of the United States, consumers mention that reliability is the most important factor when purchasing a car, and to this day, the reliability of internal combustion locomotives is evaluated to be higher than that of 100% electric vehicles.

The most important issue for security-related regulations is location information collection. In order to protect the privacy of individuals in Korea, the collection of location information, which is part of personal information, is also prohibited in principle. In order for a company to collect customer location information, consent must be clearly obtained, and the collected data must be used only for a specific purpose, and must not be provided or utilized to a third party. Location information is very sensitive as it can reveal a person's movements, habits and potentially even daily life, but it has great potential to be used for marketing purposes.

<Europe is implementing GDPR regulations to protect personal information>

Restriction on the collection of location information was a regulation introduced to protect personal privacy as much as possible and prevent indiscriminate use of personal data. There are many cases.

In the case of a smart car, location information collection is indispensable because it is necessary to grasp the location and operating environment of the vehicle operator in real time and provide appropriate driving information to the vehicle. However, as described above, collection of location information is currently severely restricted in Korea, which inevitably weakens the will of potential smart car developers to develop technology. However, easing regulations at once is not a solution. If the government allows smart car manufacturers to collect location information, this will cause regulatory inequality and conflict with companies in various fields that want to collect existing location information. A plan to amend the current regulations so that all companies can collect location information in principle is also not a solution. Basically, there is a high possibility that people's personal information will be misused or abused, and there is a high possibility that social public interest will be infringed. Also, it is not a guaranteed result that the smart car market will be activated by the deregulation. Consumers do not make purchase decisions based on whether location information can be collected. Rather, since the purchase decision is made based on the size and existing reliability of the company, potential new entrants are highly likely to be rejected by consumers. Only companies that consumers trust that their personal information will be safely processed will remain in the market, making it difficult to popularize it. Therefore, it can be seen that, like other previous regulations, regulations related to supplementation must emerge that reflect the characteristics of a new technology called smart cars. These regulations should be presented at an appropriate level to attract private consumption and corporate investment, and should also be applied at an appropriate time. Delays in regulatory improvements may fail to build consumer confidence and delay potential companies from investing in new technologies. However, hasty deregulation may rather cause various regulatory conflicts, cause damage to consumers, and negatively affect the formation of the smart car market. Therefore, the government should introduce timely regulatory improvements by coordinating the positions of various interest groups, such as consumer protection, companies wishing to enter new industries, and existing companies.

(2) e-Health care

The ICT (Information and Communications Technology) healthcare industry, also known as the digital health or eHealth industry, refers to the application of technology and information systems in the healthcare sector. It includes a wide range of technologies, services and solutions aimed at improving health care delivery, improving patient care, streamlining operations and promoting better health outcomes. Let's take a look at the representative ICT healthcare industry.

The first is the Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. EHR systems digitize patients' medical records and make them accessible to health care providers in a variety of environments. It facilitates seamless communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals by enabling the secure storage, retrieval and exchange of patient information.

When the electronic health record system is linked with the health information exchange (HIE) system, a stronger synergy effect occurs. HIE refers to a system that enables safe and efficient sharing of patient health information between multiple medical institutions. It enables seamless exchange of medical information between care providers, giving health care providers access to up-to-date and comprehensive patient records, which helps improve care coordination and decision-making.

The second is telemedicine. Telemedicine utilizes digital communication technology to deliver health care remotely, allowing patients to consult with health care providers via video conference, phone call, or other virtual platform, removing geographic barriers and increasing access to care. can Telemedicine encompasses a wide range of telemedicine services including remote monitoring, mobile health apps and digital health platforms.

The third is health analysis and big data services. The ICT medical industry utilizes big data analytics to extract valuable insights from large amounts of health-related data, which can broadly support various aspects of health care by analyzing individual lifestyle patterns, trends, and correlations. This field is an industry that has grown rapidly with the recent development of mobile and internet, and provides personalized mobile health applications and digital solutions.

The fourth is wearable devices and IoT services. Wearable devices such as fitness trackers and smart watches, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as remote monitoring sensors enable continuous health monitoring and data collection. These devices provide health care consumers with real-time health information, encourage preventive care, and enable individuals to take an active role in managing their health. In addition, in the case of patients with chronic diseases, stable disease management is possible and home care is supported without the cost of moving. Recently, as various wearable devices, starting with smart watches and healthcare bands, have been introduced to the market, the market size is also rapidly increasing.

The ICT health industry has the potential to transform health care delivery, improve patient outcomes and increase efficiencies within the health care system. But it also comes with issues related to data security, privacy, interoperability and regulatory compliance. In particular, striking a balance between technological innovation and patient privacy and data protection is critical to fully exploiting the potential of ICT in healthcare while maintaining trust and ethical standards.

Specifically, looking at the regulatory conflicts occurring in the ICT healthcare industry, it is an issue in a blind spot where existing regulations are not applied to ICT technology. This is a common problem in the new technology industry, but it is more severe in the case of the ICT healthcare industry. The reason is that medical services for health management are combined in addition to smartphones and smart watches that have been released and are being commercialized. Since it is a kind of additional service, it is possible to launch it on the market as long as there are safety regulations from the government, so the demand for resolving the regulatory vacuum is growing that much. The question is whether smartphones functioning as medical devices should undergo the same safety verification as existing medical devices. Considering the safety of users, it should be subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices, but it is argued that it is harsh to undergo strict medical device safety verification just because some functions or services fall under the medical field. In general, since medical devices used in hospitals can directly affect the health of patients, they must be certified and evaluated through strict safety tests when used, and are regulated to be released after clinical trials. Because the cost of clinical trials and certification evaluations is very high, when miniaturized ICT healthcare devices are released after going through the same certification evaluation, market launch is virtually difficult due to the high cost burden, and related technology development is also likely to be hampered. For formal medical devices, malfunctions or side effects can cause serious medical accidents and can cause serious harm to patients' lives, so there is a regulatory goal to prevent medical accidents through thorough safety verification even if a lot of money and time are invested. However, it can be seen as excessive regulation that does not fit the goal to consider ICT healthcare devices that are at the level of simple self-diagnosis by ordinary consumers as official medical devices. Therefore, there is a need for a safety verification system that goes through a simplified certification evaluation tailored to the nature of ICT healthcare devices.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also points out the irrationality of the regulatory method that requires the same certification tests centered on existing medical devices in the ICT healthcare industry (U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2017). In this report, they explain that regulations on existing medical devices are devices that support medical practice for hospitals, and strict safety verification is required, and leading regulations are needed to secure patient trust and induce related technology development. However, in the case of ICT devices, this high-cost and strict certification system can hinder the entry of potential companies and delay the development of related technologies by existing companies. Therefore, instead of directly applying the existing medical device regulations to ICT healthcare devices, the unique characteristics should be appropriately analyzed and safety verification regulations at an appropriate level should be introduced.

In order to release existing medical devices, Korea requires them to undergo technology evaluation and safety certification through various organizations such as the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, and the Korea Health and Medical Research Institute. However, in the case of recently introduced ICT healthcare devices, the evaluation or certification process may be prolonged due to the lack of understanding of the new technology by the certification evaluators. A domestic company that wanted to launch a customized heart care service by using smartwatches to store personal electrocardiogram records at all times and transmit related data to medical staff wasted more than three years to obtain approval for the safety of related technologies and a health insurance benefit decision. did. While domestic companies are still struggling to complete certification evaluations, famous overseas smartwatch manufacturers have succeeded in supplying new smartwatches with the same functions to the world, drawing attention. Although it was completed first, marketization was delayed due to regulatory restrictions, and products that were sufficiently competitive in the global market were undervalued compared to competitors' products.

Such product release delays due to regulations impose a high level of uncertainty on manufacturers, greatly impeding related technology development or facility investment. In addition, it is very unreasonable that the same regulations applied to existing hospital medical devices are applied. As described above, in the case of hospital medical devices, there is a possibility of causing fatal damage to patients or causing side effects, and strict evaluation and certification procedures are applied to prevent this and to secure reliability and safety. It is justified to invest sufficient time and money to prevent medical accidents on devices directly related to the patient's life. However, for the new technology market, it will be necessary to apply regulations in line with the changing industrial environment. In particular, the ICT new technology market is changing and growing very quickly. If all the existing regulatory procedures are applied, if a competitive product has already been launched and preoccupied in the global market, it will face the difficulty of launching a product in a very unfavorable situation as a latecomer. Therefore, in the case of ICT healthcare devices, a more simplified certification evaluation system should be applied separately in consideration of their functions and impact on product buyers. In particular, in the case of Korea, the procedure for obtaining health insurance benefits is also a major barrier to manufacturers. In the case of medical equipment, there are many relatively expensive products, so if you receive a health insurance benefit decision, you can supply products to the market at a lower price with government support. However, the decision on health insurance benefits must be evaluated and certified by various supervisory and management organizations such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, and the Health Insurance Corporation. The results are also uncertain. For this reason, companies are asking for exemption from the health insurance benefit judgment review, as it is good even if they do not receive government subsidies for their devices. Yes, many companies are complaining of difficulties. Therefore, a new simplified regulatory procedure reflecting the characteristics of the ICT healthcare device industry should be created to resolve regulatory conflicts among related companies.

Since ICT healthcare devices are easily used by the general public, appropriate regulations are needed to ensure safety. Nevertheless, the clinical safety regulations and new technology evaluation and certification regulations faced by companies wishing to manufacture ICT healthcare devices are very high. Many companies give up on market entry due to high regulatory barriers even though they have new technologies.

Of course, because consumers' confidence in devices that have undergone government clinical trials increases, clinical trials or safety certification evaluations function to induce consumer demand for new technology products where uncertainty about their performance or safety exists. Ultimately, it has a positive impact on market formation and development. However, excessive regulatory compliance costs may increase product prices and reduce consumer demand.

Summarizing the mutually complex effects of government regulations once again, government regulations related to clinical safety can be an incentive for companies to reduce new investments and R&D expenses. Therefore, by lowering the level of regulation, companies can increase their investment and have a positive effect on technology development. However, blindly lowering the regulation may adversely affect consumers' confidence in safety, causing a negative impression of the ICT health device itself and side effects of reducing consumption and market size. Therefore, in the case of clinical safety-related regulations, the level that can maximize the positive factors generated during deregulation and minimize the side effects must be determined. Regulatory procedures for safety should also keep in mind that safety is strengthened to remove consumer doubts.

New technology evaluation and certification procedures also take an excessively long period of time due to the current strict technical evaluation, and during that period, companies have to bear losses due to high regulatory costs and delays in market launch. Difficult paperwork for screening, high cost of testing, and uncertain evaluation results are a huge burden on companies, and current regulatory barriers are acting as barriers to entry of new companies. Even though technology development has already been completed, the certification review process has not been completed, so uncertainty before market launch is reluctant to invest in facilities. However, the new technology evaluation and certification process is initially a problem directly related to consumer safety, and its necessity is recognized for long-term maintenance of the market and securing consumer reliability. Therefore, regulatory procedures related to new technology evaluation and certification should be pursued to maximize the positive aspects of deregulation and minimize side effects, similar to the direction of clinical safety regulatory improvement described above. In other words, regulations that reflect the characteristics of ICT digital healthcare devices that are differentiated from existing hospital medical devices are needed. Regulations suitable for new technologies should be designed to encourage potential companies to enter the market and incumbent companies to invest in R&D to develop new technologies, while protecting the safety of consumers. Fortunately, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Food and Drug Administration, which are in charge of reviewing domestic medical devices, are promoting regulatory improvement by improving the review process for new technology medical devices that are differentiated from existing medical devices, unifying review processing agencies and reducing the period required for technology evaluation. there is. We understand the new technology market, where timeliness is important, and are promoting the ‘evaluation after selection’ system. However, it is still not enough to feel the results in the market.

<Strategic direction of support for the medical device industry (Ministry of Health and Welfare, ‘23.4)>

The ICT healthcare industry is a 7.9 trillion won market in Korea in 2019 and is showing a growth rate of more than 10% annually, and it is one of the potential markets that are paying attention to its value and development potential in many countries, including the United States and Europe (Song Min-sun, 2014). In particular, Korea's medical technology and ICT technology level are evaluated as the world's best, and the development of ICT healthcare devices that are attracting attention in the global market is taking place competitively. Considering this market potential, the government urgently needs to improve regulations so that new products that can dominate the global market can be developed.

(3) FinTech

The Fintech industry stands for Financial Technology and refers to the application of innovative new technologies to provide innovative financial products and services. The fintech industry emerged in the early 21st century as a response to the limitations and inefficiencies of traditional financial institutions. The fintech industry, which emerged with the goal of increasing accessibility, convenience, efficiency and transparency of existing financial services, combines fields such as artificial intelligence, big data analysis, blockchain technology, mobile applications and cloud computing to provide digital payments, mobile banking, Pioneered various financial services such as P2P lending, blockchain technology, and robo-advisors. Representative examples of fintech include Paypal, which was a pioneer of online payment that appeared in the United States in 1998, and Tencent's WeChat Pay system, which has now become the core of the Chinese economy. The UK is a major fintech hub, and the UK government has actively supported the growth of fintech through regulatory initiatives such as the creation of a regulatory sandbox by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). As a result, the UK is now a leading center for fintech innovation, embracing numerous fintech startups, accelerators and incubators not only in Europe but also globally. Fintech is a phenomenon that is happening simultaneously with innovative start-up companies around the world, and is a representative new industry that opens up new market opportunities according to technological development.

The fintech industry has discovered a number of efficient and creative services by combining innovative IT technology with the existing financial industry. Finance has been selected by experts around the world as the field with the most potential for development where synergies can be seen through industrial convergence. In the case of Korea, the fintech industry is emphasized early as a sustainable economic growth engine, but in reality, it is difficult to implement due to strict financial regulations. Although the fintech industry incorporates information and communication technology, it essentially corresponds to the financial industry. In addition, Korea's financial regulations are quite strict, and when the existing financial regulations are applied to fintech, regulatory conflicts arise.

In general, the most problematic is when strict accreditation standards for financial institutions are applied to fintech companies as well. If a financial institution becomes insolvent, it can cause a serious financial crisis to customers, so financial authorities strictly manage financial institutions through an authorization system. In order to become a financial institution, a minimum amount of capital must be achieved, and non-face-to-face transactions are restricted. In addition, regulations on the separation of banking and commerce are in force, which strictly prohibits the infiltration of industrial capital into financial capital. In fact, it is extremely difficult for ICT companies to become financial institutions in order to do fintech business in Korea, which acts as a major obstacle to the spread of the fintech industry. On the other hand, overseas countries are solving the problem by appropriately easing such financial regulations. In the case of the UK, capital size regulations do not apply when ICT companies enter the financial industry. In China, the government actively encourages non-financial institutions to enter the financial industry (Kim Gyeong-gi and Hong Jin-seok, 2015). In fact, in the case of capital size restrictions, financial institutions are forced to secure initial capital, which was introduced for regulatory purposes to prevent the risk of default that may occur later and to protect customers' financial assets. is 100 billion won, and in the case of local banks and internet banks, it is limited to 25 billion won. If the limit on the size of the initial capital is excessively high, fintech companies with small capital cannot enter the market themselves. This weakens the motivation for new technology development in the fintech industry and leads to a decrease in investment such as R&D. As a result, it can negatively affect the vitalization of the fintech industry and result in market encroachment by global companies. The fintech industry is highly likely to develop around competent small-scale venture companies based on innovative ideas. In the market that began to form in this way, more aggressive investment and new technology development are additionally made, resulting in a virtuous cycle structure in which companies with global competitiveness are born. However, ICT companies with small capital that have innovative technologies or ideas have to bear the burden of accumulating capital for a long time to become a financial institution, and these cost burdens additionally hinder innovative companies from entering the fintech industry. If the entry of new companies is delayed, competition in the existing market decreases, and companies have less incentive to launch new products and services or conduct additional research and development, which reduces investment. If this vicious cycle is experienced, the existing market will shrink in the long term, and there is a risk that consumer market demand will also decrease.

However, problems arise even when focusing on being an ICT company and exempting the minimum capital size regulation. Capital regulation is a device that protects the assets of financial consumers from sudden bankruptcy or loss due to poor management of financial institutions. There will be no customer who wants to take risks and entrust their valuable assets to a financial institution that has no protection. Therefore, a certain level of capital regulation is required to protect fintech consumers. And these safety devices are also helpful for companies in the long run. Because the safety of fintech services is guaranteed, consumers' awareness improves and market demand itself increases, expanding the size of the market. Therefore, capital regulation for the fintech industry should be prepared at a level that protects financial consumers and designed at a level that does not burden companies too much. Second, let's look at the regulations on non-face-to-face transactions. Non-face-to-face transaction restrictions are regulations that restrict a significant number of non-face-to-face transactions in order to prevent financial fraud. Financial institutions, in principle, must set up offline financial branches, and respond to and transact with consumers there. However, since non-face-to-face transactions are the basis of the fintech industry where new ICT technologies are introduced, the obligatory employment of offline counters and employees creates the effect of forcing huge cost investments, which acts as an entry barrier. In addition, since most fintech companies are based on small capital, this entry barrier is a major obstacle. If the entry of innovative companies equipped with new technologies is hindered, competition in the fintech industry is hindered, and the incentive for existing companies to develop technology is reduced. Overall, the competitiveness of the domestic fintech industry is undermined and the speed of technological innovation is reduced, resulting in negative results.

As described above, the reason for regulating non-face-to-face transactions is that there is a very high probability of financial fraud occurring online, and consumers are anxious because there is a high possibility that sensitive personal information will be misused. The stricter the government regulation, the less anxiety of consumers and the higher the confidence in the market. This improvement in consumer confidence helps to expand the fintech market itself and increase the market size. In the case of financial services, when a financial accident or fraud occurs, the damage is relatively large and the amount of damage is large compared to the general goods or service market, so consumers are sensitive to transaction safety and prefer face-to-face transactions to non-face-to-face transactions. there is a great tendency Therefore, the government's restrictions on non-face-to-face transactions should consider the regulatory compliance costs that potential entrants must bear, and design appropriate levels of regulation to ensure consumer safety. When consumers' trust is formed, potential customers lead to actual market demand, which increases the market size of the fintech industry. When the overall pie of the market increases, the fintech industry as a whole can become a new driver of economic growth by serving as an incentive for companies to expand investment so that new technologies and more innovative systems can be developed. In the case of the current non-face-to-face transaction regulation, it is prepared for existing financial institutions, and it should reflect the characteristics of fintech companies that do not operate by setting up branches or counters due to the nature of ICT technology. However, unconditionally abolishing or mitigating existing regulations is not appropriate considering consumer protection. Therefore, government regulations should be introduced in a balanced way to protect the social public interest while considering the characteristics of new businesses.

Lastly, the principle of separation of banking and commerce refers to regulations that limit the combination of financial capital and industrial capital. Since the financial industry represented by banks has a low equity capital ratio and most of them conduct lending business by inflowing funds from customers or creditors, when a bank is owned by a general company, it is to prevent financial consumers' assets from being at risk. It is also a regulation introduced to prevent industrial capital such as large corporations from injecting and dominating the financial industry with the assets of depositors rather than their own capital. If industrial capital dominates the financial industry, it is more likely to borrow from banks and become insolvent due to reckless investment and business expansion. In fact, regulations that separate finance and industry are limited not only in Korea but also globally. For example, in the case of the United States, investment banks and commercial banks have been separated since 1933, and in the case of the EU, shareholders who own more than 10% of a bank's shares are obliged to report to the supervisory authority, and the supervisory authority monitors the impact on the financial market. may exercise the right of refusal. Japan does not explicitly stipulate the separation of banking and commerce, but similar to the EU, shareholders holding 5% or more of a bank's shares must report it to the supervisory authority, and prior approval from the authorities is required for holding in excess of 20%. are regulating The reason for such strict regulation of the financial sector is that when a company owns a bank, there are cases where customers, not their own capital, divert funds entrusted to the bank to invest in reckless business expansion or high-risk businesses, and thus deteriorated industrial capital. This is because it can lead to insolvency of banks, causing damage to a wide range of asset investment consumers. Also, this is because it can create a fatal risk not only for one company's insolvency, but for a country or the world economy as a whole.

However, this principle of separation of banking and commerce has become the biggest barrier to entry as the fintech industry was founded. Fintech companies are not financial institutions, and industrial capital with innovative technologies is the basis. Therefore, running an internet bank or providing financial services is a clear illegal act as a result of industrial capital running the bank. However, banning the entry of fintech companies on the basis of the separation of banking and commerce only in Korea will only result in global companies taking away all of the domestic internet asset trading market. Therefore, recently, not only Korea but also the world has been easing regulations on the separation of banking and commerce and implementing measures to revitalize fintech finance. In Korea, in 2017, to foster the fintech industry, the fintech regulatory innovation plan was announced. It is a trend. As a result, KT's K-Bank and Kakao's Kakao Bank, which were established in 2018, were allowed personal deposits, loans, and overseas remittance services, and are gradually expanding their service scope.

However, as explained above, the financial market has a characteristic in which the safety protection of a large number of financial consumers must be considered first. Compared to general financial institutions, fintech companies can be established with relatively small capital, and financial institution supervision is also less compared to financial institutions, and they are exempt from various reporting obligations. In response to this situation, existing financial institutions are claiming reverse discrimination and criticizing the current regulatory system, which is a tilted playing field, claiming that only financial institutions are subject to enhanced obligations for the same tasks. In addition, concerns about the protection of financial consumers are raised in a situation where industrial capital indirectly owns Internet banks and the risk of the industry becoming insolvent still exists. Financial authorities must strive to achieve both the public interest of revitalizing the fintech industry and stabilizing and protecting the financial market. will have to be analyzed.

Since the financial market has a very high ripple effect on the entire economy, the ripple effect of tightening or relaxing regulations should be closely considered. Unfortunately, however, financial authorities do not have much time. The pace of innovation and scope of change in the new technology market is so fast that it is different from the existing industry. In addition, since these innovative technologies change simultaneously around the world, the domestic regulatory system is urgently being reorganized in order to preoccupy the global market.

To emphasize once again, the ICT convergence industry has different characteristics from existing industries. In addition, the government's regulatory redesign is an essential part for the formation and development of the new technology market. Voices for deregulation are growing because government regulations can hinder the entry of new products and services and act as entry restrictions for potential companies, hindering technology and facility investment. However, regulations may need to be strengthened to ensure and protect the safety of consumers, and new regulations may be needed to secure consumers' trust in unfamiliar products and services. The government's technology regulation also promotes technology development across industries. Therefore, it is necessary to redesign regulations at an appropriate level to increase investment in innovative technologies through an understanding of new technologies and new markets, rather than indiscriminate deregulation or strengthening of regulations. In addition, consideration of the global regulatory level should be reflected so that domestic fintech companies can be competitive in the global market. Recently, in Korea, efforts have been made to ease regulations or to optimize the level of regulations in order to resolve irrationality such as various capital regulations or excessive certification procedures through comparison with overseas regulations, but the regulatory barriers experienced in the field are still at a high level.

<At the 5th Regulatory Reform Conference (’22.12), the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission announced a reexamination of the starting point of the separation of banking and commerce>

Recently, the UK has announced that it will point to the financial market as a strategic industry to lead the depressed market after leaving the EU and promote improvement of the legal system to revitalize the financial industry. What the British financial authorities paid attention to was that they would expand investment by abolishing and reorganizing the existing EU regulations by the end of this year as they deviated from the EU's common financial regulations after Brexit. In addition, the Financial Services Market Act will be amended to stabilize the financial market and strengthen consumer protection. In addition, it was decided to ease regulations on the separation of retail banking and investment banking, which had been implemented since the 2008 global financial crisis. Previously, banks with over £25 billion in deposits (approximately KRW 39 trillion) were required to separate retail banking and investment banking, but later this standard was raised to £35 billion (approximately KRW 54 trillion), and banks with small investment banks were regulated. exclude from the target. In addition, the sandbox to provide financial market infrastructure will be expanded. Through this, it is expected to serve as a system for testing new technologies and innovations, such as distributed ledger technology and investment activities related to countable assets. The UK is a representative financial advanced country following New York in the US. In particular, the world's first financial regulatory sandbox was introduced and the fintech industry that promoted the fintech hub is a financial advanced country that stands out. In the case of the fintech industry, as it is very important to preoccupy the global market through ICT technology, Korea should also refer to the direction of global regulatory reform to strengthen the innovation capabilities of the financial industry.

4. New industry growth through regulatory innovation

(1) Characteristics of New Industry Regulations

Regulation refers to the intervention of the government or the public sector to ensure social public benefits, such as forming a social safety net, securing economic efficiency and equity. Representatively, it is a system that restricts potential companies or individuals from entering the market through various reporting, licensing, and certification procedures. These market entry-type regulations have a common feature that, in principle, entry into prohibited areas is permitted when certain requirements are met. And these entry regulations are considered one of the obstacles that adversely affect technological innovation. No matter how creative ideas and innovative technologies are, the possibility of new products or services being developed in a pre-prohibited market becomes slim. In addition, the possibility of additional technology development and facility investment linked to the development of these new technologies is also blocked in advance. As a result, there is a problem of delaying the generation of new economic growth engines or social benefits.

However, market entry regulation is not necessarily harmful. The purpose of the introduction of entry regulation is to prevent and supervise in advance accidents that are likely to infringe on the social public interest or that may harm the safety of members. Therefore, as an institutional device to eliminate social risks in advance and form a safety net, it is rather an opportunity to promote the development of innovative technologies and form new markets. Environmental regulations can be seen as a representative example. Government's various safety regulations for environmental protection can promote the development of innovative technologies for companies to reach environmental protection standards, and regulations can change the perception or attitude of companies or individuals. Regulation can also build consumer confidence and potentially increase demand for existing markets. From the point of view of a company, after entering the market by complying with regulations, it can be stably protected and can operate in the market with predictability. In this sense of stability, active facility investment and additional R&D can take place. If there is a risk of actual irreparable damage or risk, both companies and consumers may suffer great damage, so the government's enforcement of advance entry regulations can be evaluated as essential. Regulation is not necessarily the opposite of innovation.

Nonetheless, it is true that regulation is traditionally pointed out as a reason for hindering innovation. The biggest part of the reason is the “regulation lagging phenomenon”. Regulations impose new obligations on businesses, individuals, and members of society, so a legal basis is essential. Therefore, even if there is a social awareness that new regulations are necessary for some reason, it will inevitably take a considerable amount of time to actually reorganize regulations or establish new ones. And during this period, there is a regulatory vacuum or an unreasonable situation is created due to the application of existing regulations. In particular, in the case of prior prohibition, irreversible damage must be prevented, and the impact on various areas and stakeholders must be analyzed and reflected from various angles, so it often takes a lot of time to reorganize regulations. If an experimental challenge is required for the development of a new technology, this problem is further intensified.

The opinion that regulatory reform is necessary was not raised only after the development of new ICT technology. Since entry regulation significantly infringes individual or corporate freedom, it is necessary to consider whether it is justified to limit the freedom of those who potentially want to enter the market. This is a matter of looking at what desirable regulation is. To this end, it is necessary to judge whether the purpose of the regulation is just, whether the means are appropriate, and whether the infringement caused by the introduction of the regulation is minimized.

In accordance with the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations, regulations in Korea currently stipulate that, in case of new establishment or reinforcement, the head of a central administrative agency prepares a regulatory impact analysis report, conducts a self-examination, and then undergoes an examination by the Regulatory Reform Committee (Chairman: Prime Minister). If, as a result of the decision of the Regulatory Reform Committee, excessive regulations are to be withdrawn or recommended for improvement, the head of the central administrative agency shall follow the improvement recommendation unless there is a special reason, and submit the corrective details to the committee (Article 14 of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations).

<Prime Minister Han Deok-soo presiding over the Regulatory Reform Committee (’22.10)>

In the case of existing regulations, the head of the central administrative agency can self-organize, but the Regulatory Reform Committee reviews them if necessary. In the process of regulatory review, the effects of the introduction of regulations, that is, losses and profits, on stakeholders are verified through a ‘regulatory impact analysis report’. Through this process, the review by the Regulatory Reform Committee is functioning so that appropriate level of regulation is introduced rather than indiscriminate deregulation.

(2) Meaning and Limitations of Comprehensive Negative Regulation

In 2010, the Ministry of Government Legislation announced at the National Competitiveness Enhancement Committee that it would introduce a “approval and permission system in principle.” This is a declaration of the will to convert the existing “positive regulatory method” into a “negative regulatory method.” Korea's legal system is statutory legalism, and there was a practice that was interpreted as 'prohibited' except for matters that were clearly permitted in the legislative technology. It is to accept criticism that these regulatory practices are mass-producing unreasonable regulations that have no legal basis and will be corrected. What was actually legislated after the announcement by the Ministry of Government Legislation was the case of amending the Information and Communication Convergence Act. According to Article 3, Paragraph 7 of the Information and Communications Convergence Act, 'the state and local governments must, in principle, allow new technologies and services such as information and communication convergence that do not violate related laws and actively strive to activate them.' . Afterwards, the Basic Act on Administrative Regulations, a general law on regulation, was amended to legislate the ‘approval in principle, prohibition in principle, authorization and permission regulation method’. ‘Principle permission, exceptional prohibition, permission, and regulation method’ means that all regulations to restrict market entry must be stipulated in the law, and all matters that are not directly restricted by the law are permitted.

Recently, it is argued that the introduction of comprehensive regulation is needed for new industries, using the expression ‘negative regulation’. The meaning of "comprehensive" is interpreted to mean that existing cases where market entry was restricted by being excluded from the concept definition will be improved, away from the existing legislatively limited and enumerative definition of the concept. Fundamentally, the rule of allowing principle and prohibiting exception can be interpreted as an improvement in a desirable direction in principle. The basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution are restricted by law when necessary for public welfare. Therefore, the current practice, which is interpreted as prohibition because it is not stipulated in the law, is likely to be regarded as prohibiting basic rights such as freedom through administrative interpretation.

However, there are also opinions that raise questions about the performance of negative regulatory reform. Originally, the expression “negative regulation” itself originated in the field of international trade. In determining the permissible scope of trade opening, it is evaluated that the method of setting only prohibited items and permitting all other items (negative list) is more likely to activate trade than the method of specifying items allowed for import and export and regulating all others (positive list). receive However, in trade relations, list regulations usually have relatively clear targets in terms of specifying items, but when the same concept is applied to regulations, interpretation may vary depending on what is specified. For example, when allowing in principle and prohibiting exceptionally, it is not clear whether this is positive or negative when redefining permission for exceptional prohibition by being mandated by law in the legal system. If you look at the contents of the actual law, it becomes more complicated. Cases in which the law has clear provisions, but in practice, exceptions are widely recognized through delegation, cases in which laws and regulations stipulate both permits and exceptions when delegating to subordinate statutes, and it is clear whether they are prohibited in principle or exceptional in the interpretation of laws and regulations If not, the same thing. In fact, there is a need to clarify everything legislatively, but the area to be applied by interpretation, whether prohibited or permitted, is absolutely necessary, and if the negative principle should be uniformly applied to that part, rather unreasonable cases may occur.

The second problem is that in the case of pre-entry regulation, it is necessary to make a separate judgment by considering the necessity of regulation and whether the nature of the prohibited act is preventive according to the validity of the regulation. Unconditionally abolishing advance entry regulations and changing existing patents or permits to a reporting system that does not require government judgment cannot be a universal key to solving everything. The purpose and means of introducing regulations must be judged proportionately, and the feasibility must be considered individually. In Korea, U-turns are allowed only when there are traffic signs indicating that U-turns are allowed, but in the case of the United States, U-turns are allowed in all areas except where there are traffic signs indicating that U-turns are prohibited. However, this difference does not mean that Korea's traffic control method is inferior and that of the United States is superior. This can be simply seen as a difference in the regulatory method, which is only a system adopted in consideration of the size of the land and road traffic conditions of the two countries (Park, 2018). In other words, it was decided according to the frequency of traffic accidents and the degree of need to control the risk. The negative regulation principle is also a kind of recommendation, and it should not be interpreted as unconditionally inferior to the positive regulation. In fact, it is practically difficult to clearly define all prohibitions in the law. Rather, in the law, it is a realistic interpretation to stipulate that the prohibition provisions be established in subordinate laws through delegation. A 'comprehensive' negative regulation concept that comprehensively defines or prohibits a concept may actually create problems that harm clarity or predictability.

A more important issue in practice is why the case where it is ambiguous whether or not it is prohibited by law (legislative vacuum) is interpreted as prohibition, and why divisional regulations by ministries continue. These regulatory practices arise because of the question of who is, in fact, responsible for problems arising from the implementation or non-enforcement of regulations. Preventing damage by interpreting matters that are not clearly permitted by law rather than taking responsibility for damages caused by administrative interpretation will be the first choice for the person in charge. And this is not a matter of a particular public official individually. When interpreting whether a specific regulation is applied to society as a whole, it is reasonable and more interpretable to prevent it by prohibiting it rather than bearing the risk that may occur through exceptions. Even if negative regulation is introduced, the problem of interpreting and applying the relevant norms, and furthermore, the practice of being responsible for this, still remains, so it should not be seen that the negative transition is responsible for the entire regulatory reform.

However, accepting the negative principle rather than the past positive method as a general normative system would be very meaningful in terms of declaring the principle of guaranteeing freedom and emphasizing its importance. In terms of the legislative method, when it is said that a certain act is restricted, it gives a message that it is desirable to introduce only the minimum restrictions on it and clearly enumerate the prohibited acts. The method of generally prohibiting everything and allowing exceptionally without any particular reason would be convenient from the supplier's point of view, but it is a structure in which the general public can only enjoy very limited freedom, so it is to limit it. It should be emphasized that the negative way of regulating has the advantage of free economic activity for all non-prohibited activities.

Perhaps more important, however, is the flexibility to adapt to individual regulatory situations rather than generalizing the application of specific principles. For example, now that new services combining broadcasting and telecommunications are being provided, it is no longer necessary to divide the business areas of key telecommunications operators into telephone, Internet, and Internet phone services. This is a result of changes in the norms in accordance with the need for regulatory improvement due to market changes such as new technology and new product launches, not the result of reflecting only the need for deregulation.

In conclusion, considering the recent market situation where industrial areas are collapsing and converging, the most important keywords for regulatory improvement will be 'timing' and 'flexibility'. It is necessary to quickly resolve regulatory conflicts that cause unreasonable results with existing regulations, and it is necessary to be flexible to open up room for improvement in line with changing market conditions while eliminating uncertainty in the market and consumers. In addition, the function of coordinating the authority of administrative agencies is also needed to resolve cases where supervisory agencies have overlapping or conflicting regulatory interpretations according to the existing divisional policy. Lastly, it is necessary to design regulations at a level that guarantees social safety or legal stability. New technology and new service markets are not the solution to everything. Although the potential for growth is high, if it can harm consumer safety or threaten market order, it may be desirable from a public interest perspective to leave open the possibility of government intervention and regulate it even ex post facto.

(2) Prerequisites for Deregulation

Regarding new technology innovation, it can be judged that the role of the state is generally to regulate and enforce regulations to protect the public interest. In fact, in a specific field, it is a phenomenon that has happened many times in the past for the state to take risks and induce technological innovation. It was IT technology that was pointed out as the next generation economic growth engine in Korea, which was in the midst of the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. In 1998, the government established the Cyber Korea 21 plan, and accelerated investment in infrastructure and research and development, such as increasing the Internet speed by 100 times over the next five years. At that time, the budget allocated to related technology development until 2002 exceeded 10 trillion won, and the government overhauled regulations and systems that hindered the development of related new technologies. It is difficult for individual companies to make such large-scale technology development investments. Because it is unreasonable to expect to take the risk of bankruptcy and selectively promote large-scale investment for a new service that has not yet been marketed. However, the government's will and investment in promoting technology development removes obstacles to market formation and promotes innovation, providing an opportunity for related companies to work together on technology development. Therefore, the government's regulation and intervention in new technology also serves to support stable investment by mitigating entry barriers and increasing predictability.

What needs to be noted is that the government's regulatory reform should not retreat to such an extent that it loses its traditional regulatory role. Basically, laws and regulations should be prepared with clarity and legal stability in mind. In addition, elements of the rule of law, such as the principle of legal reservation, which must regulate the rights and obligations of the people as stipulated by the law, should not be infringed. If regulation is recognized as an impediment to innovation and rushed to remove it, it may end up undermining the larger rule of law. Therefore, regulatory improvement on innovative technologies should be promoted in a direction that increases flexibility, not blind mitigation.

And there are a few things to keep in mind in this process. The first is the rule of law and government accountability. Even if negative regulations are introduced, there is a realistic limit to listing all specific prohibitions in laws or sub-regulations. In reality, it is highly likely that the interpretation of regulations and the exercise of discretionary powers will be delegated to the government, so procedural control should be applied. In other words, in accordance with the principle of legal reservation, the government's exercise of regulatory discretion is properly conducted, but if the interpretation is excessively unfavorable or the person in charge deliberately omits the interpretation of regulations, the right to request an explanation for this should be stipulated and detailed procedures should be prepared. will be. This process is also linked to a request for disclosure of information to the government, and the exercise of reasonable discretion will only be possible when the right of consumers and stakeholders to know whether a rational basis for the application of the regulation and an appropriate judgment have been made is guaranteed. The second is that the possibility of amendment to the results of regulatory overhaul must exist. Because regulations are prepared based on laws and regulations, once legislated, they are difficult to modify. Therefore, in order to implement regulatory flexibility, there may be cases in which it is difficult to reflect again when market changes or technological innovations are further developed for some reason after the relevant norms have been re-amended. In addition, even when regulatory reforms and unexpected side effects occur, time is spent reorganizing regulations to solve problems. Therefore, rather than immediately flexing the regulation itself, it may be a good idea to operate the system through conditional permission such as period limitation or withdrawal right to expand the permissible scope. Rather than the flexibility of regulatory provisions, it is to provide institutional flexibility. Third, procedures for collaboration or coordination between ministries should be established in the process of exercising administrative discretion. The reason why the agency in charge interprets the regulatory gap as a legally prohibited matter is the issue of accountability. If it is not clearly allowed under the current law, the person in charge is allowed to do so at the discretion of the person in charge, and if consumer damage or social problems occur, the person in charge is not exempt from responsibility, so discretion is exercised passively. And these problems will arise even after regulatory flexibility. Realistically, it is not easy to enumerate all the details in the law. Therefore, negative regulation is introduced by limiting a certain scope, and the agency in charge still needs to exercise its discretion. Therefore, in order to prevent the agency in charge from passively exercising its discretion to evade responsibility, it is necessary for related agencies to collectively exercise their discretion or to prepare a mediation procedure for conflicts arising from different departments. In fact, if you look at the agenda system for authorization, you can get a glimpse of the advantages of this procedure. Finally, regulatory flexibilization should not be reflected in laws only as a general principle, but rather, regulatory flexibilization should be attempted in a way that reflects the characteristics of each innovative technology through individual legislation. If the general principle of regulatory flexibility is legislated, it has the advantage that it can be applied collectively, but in reality, considering the administrative organization strictly divided by related departments or areas in charge, it is understandable that discretion for individual technologies or services must be provided in individual laws. . Therefore, in order to appropriately respond to the actual demand for regulatory improvement, it is desirable to promote improvement of individual regulations while simultaneously amending regulations to resolve problems in principle that may arise in the regulatory process.

In conclusion, it is considered necessary for the government to reorganize and review existing regulations to promote new technology development and form a market to secure new growth engines. However, in the case of flexibilizing or easing existing entry regulations, the possible side effects and risks should be clearly recognized. Therefore, along with regulatory improvement, supplementary regulations should also be reorganized to supplement problems that may occur in the future. For example, in the case of self-driving delivery robots, which were previously banned and difficult to even test run, test runs became possible with temporary permission from the ministry in charge. However, in order to bear responsibility for accidents that may occur ex post facto, it is compulsory to purchase damage compensation insurance and the test drive period is limited. In addition, there was a case in which supplementary measures were taken so that the provisional permit could be revoked if a safety problem was discovered later.

In addition, in the case of deregulation or suspension, it is necessary to adjust the regulation to an appropriate level by weighing the potential risk and the benefit from success in the administrative agency through the same impact analysis as in the case of deregulation. Lastly, if post liability compensation is imposed on companies or manufacturers subject to regulatory flexibility, the problem of passively responding to regulatory improvement to avoid administrative responsibility will be greatly resolved. However, considering that innovative technology developers are mostly small and small-capitalized companies, care must be taken when setting the scope of compensation because excessive liability for compensation can actually have the effect of prohibiting innovative technology development or market entry.

(3) Positive and negative regulation

Regulation can be divided into positive regulation and negative regulation. Positive regulation refers to a type of regulation that allows prohibited acts to be legally performed when certain conditions are met. On the other hand, negative regulation is a type of regulation that considers legally empty areas that are not expressly stipulated illegal activities. Korea has a continental-type written law system and adopts a positive regulatory method rather than a negative regulatory method. Although not necessarily connected, the rigid statutory law system has a good linkage effect with the positive regulation method, and the precedent-oriented unwritten law system often adopts the negative regulation method. However, this does not mean that the positive and negative regulatory methods are dichotomously exclusive choices. This means that a negative or positive regulation method can be selectively adopted depending on the characteristics of the industry and market affected by the regulation. Recently, in Korea, there has been a movement to shift away from the existing positive regulation method to negative regulation for new industries and new technology innovation markets. However, it is not a simple dimension in which positive regulation is evil and negative regulation is good, but since the needs of each regulatory method vary depending on the legislative system and regulatory purpose, various aspects must be comprehensively considered when understanding this (Park. 2018).

Then, let's distinguish which laws and regulations are positive and negative. To make a simple distinction, we need to think about whether the act is freely guaranteed or whether the law guarantees an act that is fundamentally not allowed. The administration and management of narcotic drugs that are generally not permitted are prohibited unless otherwise provided by law. Therefore, in order to obtain permission to manage narcotic drugs, it is allowed in a limited manner when the requirements stipulated by the law (qualification conditions or facilities, supervision rights, etc.) are met. These regulations can be viewed in a positive way. The right to receive the government-provided childcare subsidy, old-age insurance, etc. can be freely enjoyed. However, if the support fund is illegally defrauded or the required documents are insufficiently submitted, the right may be revoked and regulated. In the case of acting or omitting certain requirements for beneficial rights, the form of limiting them can be interpreted as negative regulation.

Unfortunately, there are aspects that are difficult to clearly distinguish between the two regulatory methods judicially. For example, if a specific examination by the authorities is required to guarantee the freedom of business, it can be regarded as a positive regulation, but in the case of a business type that is allowed without special notification, it is freely guaranteed unless there are special circumstances, so it is likely to be interpreted as a negative regulation. also very large To develop a certain technology and to obtain a patent from the government in advance to produce a new product is a kind of entry regulation, which is a positive regulation. However, it can be interpreted as negative regulation because companies operating under patents are allowed free operation as long as they do not engage in specific illegal activities. In fact, there is an ongoing debate about this among legal scholars.

Then, let's examine what it is like to distinguish according to the nature of regulation. Regulation can be largely divided into economic regulation and safety regulation. In order to solve the problem of excessive competition in the market, the government can prepare entry regulations considering economic factors. In this case, if certain conditions are met, it is possible to enter the market with government permission or patent, which can be seen as positive regulation. On the other hand, in the case of regulations that stipulate illegal acts for the protection of social safety, they can be regarded as negative regulations depending on the nature of the legislative technology.

Therefore, although it is difficult to conclude, it is thought that the two can be distinguished according to the scope of how the regulated subject is defined. If the method of narrowly interpreting illegal or regulated objects and allowing everything that is not included in the scope is negative, and the method of broadly interpreting legal or regulated objects and allowing everything that is included in that scope is considered positive, you can understand both regulatory methods. It will help you to do it.

Negative regulation leaves it up to individual or market freedom when it is unclear what needs to be regulated. In this method, regulation is only enforced when the need for regulation is clear, that is, when the government's intervention is justified because the risk is proven, and individual freedom rights are more strongly guaranteed when the need for regulation is ambiguous. It is seen as a regulatory system that fits well with the legal system of the United Kingdom or the United States, which values individual freedom and market function. On the other hand, the positive regulation method clearly defines the legally permissible area as regulation. It is a method that trusts the expertise and discretion of the relevant authorities and allows them to legally interpret the purpose of the regulation, allowing individuals to exercise their freedoms in a positive direction for society. Continental European legal systems, such as Germany, which have high trust in the government and positively evaluate active government intervention, are bound to have a high degree of connection.

New industries and new technology markets are characterized by uncertainty. It is difficult to predict what side effects there will be, and what the risks and benefits to society will be. Considering these market conditions, the positive regulatory system is very rigid and has a lot of room to act as an obstacle to innovative testing. Korea's ICT technology level is recognized worldwide. However, as recently as a few years ago, there were many cases where the launch of services was delayed because the domestic regulatory system could not catch up with companies' Internet speed and expansive technologies. In some cases, companies that have been prevented from launching the market due to rigid regulations in Korea move to other countries and launch the service overseas. Even the positive regulatory approach may require years of legislative procedures and coordination of interests, which has led to problems in not being able to quickly overhaul regulations. Therefore, as a way to correct the problems of this positive regulatory approach, a regulatory sandbox was introduced to allow testing and temporary market launch of new technologies and new industries.

So, is negative regulation suitable for the new technology market? From the point of view of a company that needs to develop technology, negative regulation that allows all tests except for certain illegal activities would be welcome. However, if a risky new technology or new industry develops in the absence of regulation and causes social harm, it may cause irreversible damage. In August 2011, a number of patients with acute pneumonia of unknown cause occurred in domestic hospitals. Domestic medical staff could not accurately diagnose the cause of the disease, and there was no cure for the fatal disease, which had a fatality rate of close to 70-80%. This is the humidifier sterilizer case. By 2021, more than 1,700 people have died due to humidifier disinfectants, and more than 5,000 have been injured. At that time, humidifier disinfectant was introduced as an innovative technology and spread rapidly in the market, but it was later revealed that it contained chemicals harmful to the human body. As such, the humidifier disinfectant that was released under the belief that it was allowed because there was no government regulation caused a large-scale loss of life.

In 2017, the rapidly spreading virtual currency boom in Korea caused many people to invest. The general public invested in the belief that they could benefit greatly from virtual currency without knowing exactly what it was, and the government and regulatory authorities were busy collecting and analyzing information about the new technology of virtual currency. In the virtual currency market, which is not regulated by the government, various unauthorized virtual currencies are rampant, resulting in a lot of financial fraud and investment, causing great social confusion. If negative regulations are applied to new technologies and new industries, this is why ex post safety measures must be considered together.

The choice between positive and negative regulation may depend on the policy direction and legislative framework. As mentioned above, positive regulation is characterized by an emphasis on trust in the government on the premise of market failure and restrictions on the exercise of individual freedom. Therefore, government regulation has an instrumental character to protect the social public interest, and a regulatory vacuum means an incomplete state. In the positive regulatory approach, the exercise of discretion by civil servants with expertise plays a very important role. Permits mandated by law are granted if certain requirements are met, as officials determine whether the requirements have been met. Therefore, in the case of exercising negative discretion, there is a problem in that the freedom allowed in the positive regulation method can be granted in a very limited way.

On the other hand, the negative regulation method is in line with the viewpoint of being wary of government intervention based on trust in individuals and markets. Market and individual freedoms must be guaranteed indefinitely, and we oppose government intervention that limits them, that is, the application of regulations, except when it is clear that they create social risks. The negative regulatory approach is one that considers ex post government intervention necessary and argues that it is inappropriate for non-professional governments to intervene in the market without scientific evidence. From this point of view, market or individual self-regulation is more advocated than government regulation, and the government should only apply minimum safety regulations.

In conclusion, it suggests that regulatory methods may vary depending on the level of awareness of the role of the government and the market and the degree of social consensus on how important social public interest or safety is. The United States is one of the representative countries of the negative regulation method, and the United States is a country where self-regulation by corporations and social groups is very developed rather than regulation by the state.

Recently, negative regulations raised in Korea are raised as essential elements to develop new technologies and industries, but in fact, there is also a position that new industries can be developed through deregulation in a positive way. Although negative regulation has the strength of enabling tests and new product launches that were not previously permitted, it can also create the same effect by easing regulations in a positive way or increasing the permissible scope by expanding discretionary powers. Therefore, it should be understood that deregulation of new industries and new product markets is not necessarily replaced by a transition to negative regulation.

Also, it cannot be seen as correct to define all regulations in one way, positive or negative. It should be appropriately and selectively applied according to the nature of the subject of regulation and the characteristics of the market. If the characteristics of the market and products are unlikely to cause social harm, and creative ideas and experimental challenges are important, a negative rather than positive regulatory system will be more appropriate. In this case, risks or problems that may occur ex post facto after first permission can be solved by supplementing with regulations. However, if it is a product or service that can cause significant harm to the life or body of the people, it is necessary to strictly limit and allow it in a positive way, no matter how important creative ideas and experimental challenges are.

(3) Regulatory Flexibility: Comprehensive Negatives

In order to secure growth engines through new ICT technologies, the Moon Jae-in administration promoted extensive regulatory reform. These regulatory reforms were largely pursued in two directions. The first was the regulatory sandbox and the second was the introduction of comprehensive negatives. First of all, the government introduced flexibility in the legislative method through the revision of the ‘Framework Act on Administrative Regulations’, which is called the general law on regulation. It is not easy to change the existing inflexible positive regulation method to a negative one all at once, and as explained above, it is not a desirable maintenance direction. Therefore, the government reflected the comprehensive negative concept in the law to enable more flexible application of regulations to new technologies and new industries. However, the terms 'legislative method flexibility' or 'negative' were not clearly used as legal regulations. Article 5-2 of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations is entitled “Principle of Priority Allowance and Post-Regulation,” and it states that new industries are allowed in principle, but prohibited items are exceptionally regulated through a limited enumeration. A specific method is also presented. First, the concept or requirements of regulation should be stipulated to include new products and services. The second is to define the classification requirements of regulations more flexibly so that new services and products can be included. The third is a method of imposing duties if necessary after prior approval, suggesting that one of these be selected and regulated. Therefore, according to the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations, it can be interpreted that the flexibility of the legislative method is explained in four ways: negative list, comprehensive concept definition, flexible classification system, and post-regulation (Kim, 2017).

A new system introduced along with the flexibility of the legislative method is the regulatory sandbox. The regulatory sandbox is a system that is understood as a method of first permitting and post-regulation, but is stipulated separately from the definition of the comprehensive negative principle.

(4) Regulatory Sandboxes and Provisional Permits

The sandbox system is the first regulatory grace system introduced in the UK to foster the fintech industry. Currently, it is being introduced to test innovative financial services in various parts of the world, including the UK, Singapore, and Japan, and is gradually expanding its scope not only to finance but also to real areas such as energy and law. In the case of the UK, which introduced a financial regulatory sandbox for the first time, as a favorable attitude towards experimental new technologies, it is performing a function (consulting) of lowering regulatory costs and even presenting a guide for technology development to support the market launch of innovative products.

The UK's regulatory sandbox is a system that supports the development of new technologies and the launch of new products within the limits of a specific region or limited scope, rather than rejecting and suspending existing regulations. On the other hand, in the case of Singapore, similar to the UK, which is active in operating a regulatory sandbox, the nature of the system is somewhat different. In the case of Singapore's regulatory sandbox, the government first presents guidelines and organizes procedures so that regulations can be suspended or exempted if the relevant requirements are met. For example, when a business operator conceives of a sandbox operation proposal and submits it to the management agency, the administrative agency reviews it to determine whether it is appropriate. At this time, conditions can be presented as to whether the existing regulations will be suspended or exempted, but the existing regulations on consumer protection and social safety seem to be maintained. However, strict existing regulations on technical evaluation certification, financial soundness, etc. impose conditions so that they can be tested in a somewhat relaxed state.

An application for the operation of a regulatory sandbox by a new industry operator is evaluated by two criteria. The first determines whether the service will be produced with new technology or an innovative method, and the second determines whether it can bring benefits to consumers or the industry as a whole. The sandbox is operated for a limited period, and whether it is extended or suspended after the period is over is a structure that is determined by evaluating the performance that occurred during the operation period.

The regulatory sandbox currently introduced in Korea has several differences from the regulatory sandboxes that are being introduced globally. First of all, Korea's regulatory sandbox is divided into rapid confirmation, provisional permission, and special case for demonstration. In addition, unlike overseas cases that focus on the fintech industry, Korea operates a regulatory sandbox in the ICT, industry, and finance sectors, and is promoting a separate regulation-free zone with the characteristics of a regulation-free zone.

The regulatory sandbox for new industries and new technology markets is currently the same for both positive and negative regulatory countries. In the case of a positive regulatory system, there are cases where experimental new technology development is blocked by entry barriers due to strict and rigid application of legal regulations and passive exercise of discretion, so a regulatory sandbox serving as a test bed is useful to solve this problem. Even in the case of the negative regulatory system, in the legal system that regulates only certain prohibited areas, if consumer damage occurs after submitting an experimental new technology or new product, it can face huge post-action sanctions. Guidelines presented by the government to strengthen legal safety for companies Or you need a test permit. It is also obvious that innovative technologies can be further strengthened through this, so regulatory sandboxes are gradually expanding in countries around the world.

The regulatory sandbox functions to temporarily exempt new technology operators from unreasonable discrimination that they may receive due to existing regulations by suspending or exempting existing regulations to a limited extent. At the same time, existing regulations for consumer protection and social safety are maintained, and the possibility of additional regulation is left open for problems that arise after the fact.

We will briefly summarize the current regulatory sandboxes in Korea, such as rapid confirmation, special cases for demonstration, temporary permits, and special regulatory free zones. Rapid confirmation can be seen as a service unique to Korea that has a completely different character from the service defined as a regulatory sandbox abroad. When a new technology or new industry operator wants to enter a market or test a new technology, it may be unclear whether the new product or service falls under existing regulations. As explained above, Korea has a positive regulatory system based on the principle of statutory law, and if certain conditions are met, public officials are authorized to perform certain actions at their discretion. Therefore, business operators must first obtain a permit for the business before starting business, but in the case of a new technology business, there are many cases where the relevant permit is not available or it is not known where to obtain the permit. Therefore, a new system called rapid confirmation is established, and when a business operator makes an inquiry to the ministry that operates the regulatory sandbox, it responds within 30 days after confirming whether the regulation is an issue that requires approval or whether it is an issue that can be launched or operated immediately. . Rapid confirmation is operated not only by the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Industry and the Financial Services Commission, which operate ICT, industry, and financial regulatory sandboxes, but also by the Small and Medium Business Administration, which operates special regulatory free zones. Since the related ministries operate jointly without worrying about the division of ministries, applicants can apply to the ministries that are easily accessible, and the related ministries transfer inquiries to the relevant regulatory departments for processing. Because the applicant must receive a reply within 30 days, the general administrative processing period is short, reducing the situation of losing money due to delay in the innovative technology market.

In the case of the rapid confirmation system, since it is not the original service content of the regulatory sandbox, opinions are suggested that it should be separated separately, but the ministries operating the regulatory sandbox confirm the existence of regulations and business operators quickly respond through a unified window. It is evaluated that it plays an important role in the regulatory sandbox as it has advantages in the aspect designed to receive it.

Business operators who receive an answer that there are no applicable regulations through rapid regulatory confirmation can conduct their business stably without receiving a separate exception, so from the point of view of business operators, the rapid confirmation system is accepted as a system that greatly enhances legal stability.

The second is a demonstration exception and provisional permission. The provisional permit system is to relieve or suspend the regulation for a period of two years even if there are regulations in the current law or there are no explicit regulations, but it is interpreted as having regulations in interpretation. In other words, it is impossible to launch a new product or service using innovative new technology under the current law, but if the technological benefit is great, an experimental test or market launch for a limited period or limited area is legally recognized. In addition, the maintenance procedure is also designed to legalize the business permanently by reviewing market conditions and performance after provisional permission for a period of two years, mitigating or reorganizing related regulatory provisions.

In the case of the special case of demonstration, it is a system that allows testing in a limited manner if certain conditions are observed for a period of two years, despite the current law's regulation or prohibition. As for the demonstration exception, as a result of the two-year period of operation, the market situation and performance are reviewed to determine whether an additional period is extended or the related regulations are revised to enable legal launch. If, as a result of the special case for demonstration, it is recognized that there is harm to consumers and the market or there is a safety problem, follow-up management is also reflected so that the special case for demonstration is terminated. Provisional permission and demonstration exception have similar requirements and procedures. Both systems are systems that allow legal testing or market launch in a limited time or area for new technologies and service products that are difficult to release due to regulations, and allow for regulatory deferral. However, in the case of provisional permission, it is possible to launch the related market, but since the demonstration exception is only for testing, it is not premised that it will be sold to general consumers. Both systems have post-mortem safety measures in place, and stipulate that cancellation or special exceptions will be terminated if the new technology service or product harms the social public interest.

The demonstration special case and provisional permit system are special cases that are commonly operated not only in ICT, industry, and finance, but also in the regulation-free special zone, just like the rapid confirmation. Depending on the characteristics of the technology that the operator wants to operate, the operator can apply for a special case for demonstration or provisional permission to the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Industry, the Financial Services Commission, or the Ministry of Small and Medium Business.

Demonstration exceptions and temporary permits are often recognized as a type of fixed-term permit. It means that business areas that cannot be operated legally are granted temporary permission under certain conditions. However, criticism is being raised as to whether the administration arbitrarily legalizing areas that were legislatively illegal is not a violation of the rule of law. Nevertheless, for small innovative companies that have had difficulty launching a business due to various regulations from various ministries in the field, it will be meaningful in that it enables easier and faster market launch or testing when using the regulatory sandbox.

Lastly, it is a regulation-free special zone. The regulation-free special zone is a system that applies the above-mentioned special case for demonstration and provisional permission to a specific area more broadly. In other words, if the empirical special case and provisional permit system also allow testing or launching of services or products in a limited time and scope, the regulation-free special zone designates a specific area as a special zone and a new product corresponding to an innovative or strategic business grown in the area. Or, it is a system that grants special exceptions to services. While having both advantages of demonstration exception and temporary permit, it is recognized as a strategic industry tailored to the characteristics of the region, and R&D support for technology development as well as economic support is promoted.

Temporary permits and demonstration exceptions in the regulation-free special zone are also equipped with post-regulation procedures to support legal market launch by extending special cases or reorganizing related regulations by judging temporary test results later. In addition, there are follow-up management regulations such as compensation for damages and suspension of special cases in case of harm to consumers or safety problems during the demonstration period. Unlike the existing ICT, industry, and financial regulatory sandboxes that support the growth of innovative technologies for individual businesses, the regulation-free special zone aims to revitalize the local economy by fostering synergy and strategic industries that can be generated by a number of companies. It can be viewed as a support project. However, questions are raised about whether a differentiated strategy is possible in selecting new technology development support projects for each region and how to construct an organic relationship between special cases (Park, 2018). In fact, there are cases where projects overlap or conflict with the regulation-free special zone and existing regional special zones or special pilot complexes, so it is necessary to solve the problem.

5. Cases and implications of fintech regulatory innovation in the UK

(1) Backgroud

In 2015, the British government introduced a regulatory sandbox as a way to support creative testing for the development and expansion of fintech innovative technologies by financial regulators. The UK’s financial authorities announced an ‘innovation plan’ to address the regulatory gaps and entry barriers facing companies (HM Treasury, 2015). They emphasized that the important thing in the new business model in the new technology and innovative market is to be flexible and nimble.

The global financial crisis that hit the world in 2008 caused a global economic depression and served as a great opportunity to reduce people's trust in traditional banks (Arner et al., 2015). Traditional financial institutions, such as banks and insurance companies, which had led the existing financial industry, were reduced in their business capabilities, and more stringent supervision and regulation were implemented. At the same time, changes began as Internet-based industries that emerged based on the innovative development of digital technology presented new financial services. The economic weight of innovative technology companies called Big Tech, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple, has increased, and public trust in them has also strengthened.

Innovative products and services that were difficult to implement with existing information and communication technologies have become a reality, and the rapid spread of the Internet has provided the convenience of matching companies and consumers directly. In the past, financial institutions were mostly conglomerates with numerous branches based on solemn and huge capital, but innovative products and services that were difficult to implement with existing information and communication technologies have become a reality, and the rapid spread of the Internet directly connects companies and consumers. In fact, McKinsey, a consulting company that has a great influence in the international market, analyzed in a 2015 report that the payment service industry accounted for 25% of the global fintech industry, and reported high potential for future development (McKinsey & Co., 2015).

(2) Fintech and regulatory innovation

The goal of financial innovation presented by the British government was to create the most influential and innovative financial market in the world and to provide consumers with various options and values (Young, 2016). It is reported that the UK's fintech industry, as compiled by the UK's accounting firm Ernst and Young (EY), contributed about £20 billion to the UK's GDP and created more than 60,000 jobs (Ernst & Young, 2016). In 2015, investment in the fintech industry in the UK grew by 28% and reached £5.2 trillion. This accounts for nearly half of all fintech investments in Europe.

The UK government notes that the regulatory environment is very important to grow innovative companies with new technologies. However, it is emphasized that regulation is not unilaterally recognized as an obstacle that impedes innovation, and that appropriate regulation should be presented in the direction of promoting innovation. Recognizing the irrationality that arises from the current application of regulations based on the existing technology environment to the new technology industry, they pursued regulatory redesign considering the characteristics of innovative technologies. In 2015, the UK Treasury made the Government Office of Science report on the strategy that led the development of the fintech industry. The four key technologies that will lead the fintech industry presented in this report are machine learning, virtual currency and block chain, big data analysis, and mobile payment system. In addition, it is recommended to develop a regulatory sandbox and ‘RegTech’ in order to cultivate a large number of experimental and new technologies (Young, 2016).

(3) Project innovation

FCA, the representative supervisory body of the UK financial market, decided to promote ‘Project innovation’ in 2014 to develop the fintech industry. They wanted to promote chain technology development by providing satisfaction to customers by supporting the development of new financial services and promoting competition in existing markets. And as the first step, we established an Innovation Hub and started actively communicating with companies.

1) expand communication

The UK has a negative regulatory system and traditionally emphasizes the autonomy of the market rather than the role of the government. Therefore, in general, rather than actively regulating, new products or service markets are permissive and regulations are regulated in cases where safety accidents or consumer damages that occur ex post facto are proven. However, for the fintech industry, FCA actively listened to the difficulties of companies participating in the industry rather than passively responding to problems that arise after the fact. In fact, the strategy taken by FCA was evaluated as unconventional. In general, the relationship between the government and private companies is vertical, and only one-way communication is mainly conducted. However, FCA judged that solving the difficulties of innovative companies should be a priority for the development of the fintech industry, and emphasized active communication with them.

The Innovation Hub designates startups that have applied for support as subjects of Project Innovate permission, and provides support, including provision of a regulatory environment, for one year so that they can service without any inconvenience in the market. FCA supported more than 200 companies through Project Innovate and opened up market launch opportunities for 20 companies that had difficulty in promoting business due to existing regulations. Innovation Hub received candid feedback from companies on the regulatory environment and entry barriers they faced, and based on this, tried to resolve structural difficulties of potential market entrants.

In addition, FCA paid great attention to communication and coordination with stakeholders and operated a ‘specialized week by subject’. The Specialized Week by Theme is a program for many companies to analyze the causes of difficulties and discover solutions to problems in the regulatory environment that innovative companies face. Regarding the 'robot advisor' technology, which was discussed for the first time in FCA's subject-specific specialization week, a problem was raised that it was difficult to enter new technology due to the existing Financial Review Process (FAMR) of the Ministry of Finance. did

In addition to this, FCA is also operating an advisory team that provides advice to innovative companies on speedy market launch. Nine of these FCA-supported innovative companies succeeded in launching services using robot advisor technology in the market in 2016 (Woolard, 2016).

2) Financial regulatory sandbox

In 2015, FCA introduced the world's first regulatory sandbox for the financial sector to vitalize the fintech market. The regulatory sandbox is a system that eases entry regulations for innovative companies so that new technologies that have been difficult to market or test due to existing regulations can be utilized. In other words, it is a government-guaranteed playground for experimenting with innovative products, services, and new business models in the real market. After implementing the regulatory sandbox, FCA received applications from various companies and designated 24 companies as sandbox companies in the first year. These were innovative companies with various new technologies, such as banking, insurance, digital identification, blockchain, and payment services, respectively. Geographically, it was not limited to England, but had various characteristics such as Singapore, Denmark, and the United States (Young, 2016).

FCA's regulatory sandbox differs from Korea's regulatory sandbox in that it is limited to the financial sector, but it produces the same effect in terms of providing the most desperate help to innovative companies that have difficulty launching or testing due to existing regulations. there is. FCA is also operating a virtual regulatory sandbox that enables data-based testing in a virtual space, and is paying attention to consumer protection and strengthening safety devices.

3) RegTech

‘RegTech’ was emphasized along with the regulatory sandbox in the fintech industry development strategy disclosed in 2015 by the UK’s Government Science Office. Regtech, short for regulatory technology, refers to the use of technology to solve regulatory and compliance challenges facing businesses. It means streamlining and automating regulatory processes, including the application of various technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, natural language processing (NLP), data analytics, blockchain and cloud computing. Regtech's main goal is to help you efficiently navigate complex regulatory frameworks and manage the associated risks while complying with applicable laws and regulations. The solutions presented will help improve regulatory reporting, monitoring and compliance activities by reducing manual tasks, minimizing errors and increasing the speed and accuracy of regulatory processes.

Regtech finds applications in a variety of industries, including the financial, healthcare, insurance and legal sectors, which are subject to extensive regulation. Enables businesses to keep up-to-date with changing regulatory regulations and monitors transactions for potential non-compliance. It also supports the early detection and prevention of financial crimes such as money laundering, fraud, and market manipulation, and facilitates regulatory reporting. Because it utilizes advanced technology, it improves the operational efficiency of enterprises and provides enterprises with benefits such as cost reduction, improved risk management and better decision-making capabilities. It enables organizations to proactively manage their compliance obligations, identify potential issues early, and respond quickly to regulatory changes to foster a compliance culture within the organization.

Overall, Regtech plays a key role in innovating and modernizing the regulatory process, making it more efficient, accurate and adaptable to the rapidly evolving regulatory environment.

The core of Regtech presented by the UK Government Science Office is that an effective and innovative regulatory system is important to protect the interests of consumers and companies in a balanced way in the fintech market (Government Office for Science, 2015).

They recognized that the government, fintech companies, and existing financial institutions as well as universities, which are research institutes, could work together to innovate regulations. They expected that the fintech market would serve as a testing ground for new regulatory innovation as well as its meaning, and that technology was desirable as a tool for regulatory innovation beyond being regarded as a new growth engine (Young, 2016 ). It was argued that the establishment of infrastructure to enable the analysis of the latest regulations at the core of Regtech is key, and that innovative solution development and advancement should be promoted through cooperation with the private sector.

FCA recognized the importance of RegTech in 2016 and expressed that it would actively develop it. They held “TechSprint,” where various financial companies and scholars gathered to discuss what regulations were problematic in order to improve consumer access to financial services and to present solutions to solve them (Woolard, 2016).

4) implication

In the case of regulatory innovation in the UK, we can see that regulation and new technology are not necessarily antagonistic. Regulation is an evil, not an obstacle to be mitigated, but a guideline and consulting function provided by the government in the new technology market. In addition, through government regulation, technology investment by potential companies can be promoted, and market competition can be promoted and consumer benefits can be improved. The reason why the UK was able to take the lead in the fintech industry in the European market and the global financial market is because it trusted regulations and regulators, predicted the future situation through collaboration with the private sector, and established a response strategy. Their appearance is quite different from that of countries with negative regulatory regimes. This is different from the negative regulatory system in which trust in the market and ex post regulation on illegal acts have developed. The British government, including FCA, thought that the testing of technological innovation and new business models in the new technology market should be done more reliably. They focused on reducing the burden on innovative companies by more actively applying existing legal protections, responding flexibly to changes in the market environment, and swiftly overhauling regulations.

We can learn several lessons from the case of England. First, technological innovation has both risks and benefits. Innovative technologies have benefits to society, but there are also cases where they harm individual safety or cause social harm as unintended side effects. People will respond positively to services or products that clearly provide only benefits, but social conflicts may arise when a service or product with a high risk of causing social harm is divided into a group that suffers damage from new technology and a group that benefits. . In order to reconcile these conflicting situations, governments will have to structure their strategies in a way that increases benefits and reduces risks.

The second is to secure transparency in the regulatory overhaul process. The government's act of mitigating or exempting existing regulations to support and develop innovative technologies is actually granting a very large exception. In the case of the general public, there is a possibility that the government's strategy will be negatively perceived because it lacks understanding of the new technology and has not yet built trust. Therefore, it is necessary to increase public participation and gain public trust through repeated explanations of regulatory overhaul procedures and innovative technologies. It should be noted that the UK also has experience of working together with the government and the private sector for several years to form a social consensus, and it is difficult to gain the trust of the general public without such a consensus.

Third, not only legal mechanisms but also people's support and acceptance are very important for new technologies to develop and succeed in the market. No matter how beneficial and important a new technology is, the people will not trust the technology that is damaged or harms social safety, and the market size will be reduced as a result. When the government protects and nurtures the innovations of leading companies, it can enhance public trust and increase demand for new products that are launched. As the market size increases, additional technology development or companies' entry becomes active, creating a virtuous cycle.

Fourth, technological innovation and regulation are not in an antagonistic relationship. Regulation is often cited as one of the most problematic obstacles to technological innovation. However, in reality, regulation also serves as a guideline for technology development for potential entrants, and helps to improve the general public's perception of innovative technology. Since new technology has the potential to cause side effects along with benefits, if the government prepares a follow-up management system to prepare for this, citizens can reduce concerns about harmful problems and can be linked to trust in technological development. Therefore, regulators should identify the benefits and risks based on an understanding of new technologies and establish management plans and strategies for them, rather than unconditionally deregulating or abolishing them for innovation.

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

Regulations were introduced to preserve social order and protect the safety of the people. Since restrictions are put in place to protect various social and public interests, it can be perceived as an obstacle hindering market entry from the point of view of companies. Criticisms are raised about regulations that hinder market competition and protect incumbents that hinder technological innovation. However, regulation cannot be seen as the only relationship that impedes technological innovation. Rather, in the case of well-designed regulations, it can play a role in expanding and developing the new technology market by resolving the legal instability of companies, further promoting technology development, and increasing the trust of stakeholders and the public. However, we must not forget the original purpose of regulation, which is to safely protect the people and social public interest. Therefore, no matter how much regulation is promoted for the development of new industrial technologies, unconditional relaxation or elimination of regulations is not correct, and proper regulation redesign considering the characteristics of new technologies is necessary. Through appropriate regulatory arrangements, new industries can be nurtured and social benefits can be expanded.

Korea is seeking a new growth engine that can act as a future growth engine after overcoming the economic blow caused by the recent spread of COVID-19. The technology that is attracting the most attention as a new growth engine is ICT technology, and the recent ICT convergence industry is a rapidly developing market not only domestically but also globally. Therefore, Korea is also establishing strategies to foster various ICT convergence industries for sustainable economic growth. However, these various fostering support measures cannot be the only solution, and the government's regulatory reform efforts must be paralleled to bring about practical fostering effects.

In the past, regulations acted as a burden on companies, which caused negative effects such as a decline in corporate profits and a decrease in market competitiveness due to increased costs. Many companies insist on easing government regulations, but the government should adjust regulations to a reasonable level for the public good of society and the safety of the people. However, the need for regulatory overhaul recently raised in the ICT convergence industry is a discussion on a slightly different level. Criticisms are raised that the application of the same regulations to new technology industries imposes excessive burdens or produces unreasonable results because the current regulations are designed to fit the characteristics of existing technologies and markets, rather than simply being burdensome with regulations. As a result, in the new technology market where infinite competition is taking place globally, domestic companies are facing a situation where they cannot preoccupy innovative technologies and cannot promote tests other than market launches. As a result, this leads to a decrease in Korea's competitiveness in the world market, which adversely affects social benefits. Therefore, regulatory overhaul to resolve current regulatory conflicts and foster the ICT convergence industry as a new growth engine is regarded as an important task that cannot be postponed any longer.

Technology regulation acts as a burden on companies trying to enter the market, and it becomes a factor that lowers investment in R&D. In addition, even in the case of existing companies, there may be a problem in that additional technology development does not occur due to reduced incentives for R&D and capital investment due to deterioration of market competitiveness due to regulations. In society as a whole, there is no leakage effect due to technological innovation in a specific field, and the increase in consumer benefits due to the development of new products and services cannot be seen, so it is expected to have a negative effect. In addition, according to the characteristics and classification of existing industries, the current regulatory system that has been established acts as an obstacle that makes it difficult for the emergence of convergence industries in various fields. Because the regulations applied in different industrial areas are different, in the case of a convergence industry, regulatory conflicts can occur frequently when different regulations conflict with each other for a product and service.

Another issue is which regulations apply to new services and products that are not expected in the existing regulations. Convergence technology creates services and products of a completely different nature, but there may be a vacuum in which regulations cannot be applied to them, or irrationality caused by applying existing regulations as they are. In addition, the complex and complex regulatory system, such as safety certification evaluation, which requires strict requirements and procedures for safety inspection in existing industries, is acting as an obstacle to delaying the launch of new products. In a situation where there is a lack of understanding of the new technology convergence industry, the excessive regulatory burden caused by the application of regulations applied to the existing industry as it is is pointed out as the biggest problem from the perspective of new companies. Such irrationality prevents potential entrants from entering the market and delays related technology development and research.

Beyond labor and capital, which were important production factors in the past, the importance of knowledge and information has recently risen significantly. Creative products and services unimaginable in the past are traded in the market, and social benefits are greatly improved. In order to achieve sustainable growth in the modern society referred to as the knowledge and information society, it is important to recognize the importance of new technology as a new growth engine and to make efforts to develop it. Therefore, the government will need to properly understand the characteristics of the new technology market and redesign appropriate regulations to promote the industry.

By synthesizing the various contents reviewed in this report, we would like to make some policy suggestions as a way to reorganize regulations to secure new growth engines in the era of COVID-19. First, it is necessary to move away from the traditional tense relationship between regulation and technological innovation, promote redesign as a regulation that induces technological innovation, and promote technological development through more flexible application. Government regulation is not just to tighten and burden companies. Rather, in the name of regulation, it is also a means of presenting the level of technological development that companies must advance and resolving legal instability. In addition, the government plays a leading role in pioneering new markets through large-scale capital investment and risk taking, which are difficult for private companies to bear. Therefore, rather than indiscriminate deregulation, it is necessary to present an appropriate level of regulation and to redesign regulations considering the characteristics of new technologies. However, it is considered that it is difficult and inefficient in practice to redesign regulations by collecting and analyzing all governments in the government. Therefore, by referring to the UK government's cooperation model, it is thought that establishing an innovation hub where regulators, academia, and private companies can come together to diagnose problems in the current regulatory policy and study solutions can be a good method. Problems raised in the field should be interpreted in an academic sense, and solutions should be sought from a balanced perspective.

Second, to support the development of convergence industry technology and the launch of more innovative services and products, active prioritization and post-regulation principles should be actively utilized. Because regulations are enacted as laws in various interests, it is very difficult to amend them once they are prepared. Therefore, there are many cases in which regulations prepared based on the existing technological environment do not reflect the reality of the current convergence industry and act unreasonably. Even if domestic innovative companies try to produce products that can be used in the world with creative ideas and technologies, it is true that it is difficult to apply regulations to the technology in the current regulatory system, making it difficult to even test. Alternatively, small innovative companies that provide Internet-based services are subjected to high levels of capital and branch operations, which were borne by existing financial institutions, making it virtually impossible to operate. Realistically, it is difficult to overhaul all regulations in a short period of time. Therefore, the principles of prioritization and post-regulation are thought to be sufficient to lead changes to grow the new technology market without changing the basis of Korea's regulatory system. Rather than the positive regulatory system being the problem, it is thought that the opinion that the overall current regulatory system needs to be revised is suggested because the priority system is not operating sufficiently. Therefore, a two-track strategy will have to be formed. First of all, in order to quickly test new technology products or enter the market, the government should temporarily suspend regulations and apply supplementary regulations to problems that arise ex post. To this end, a strategy to more actively promote the utilization of the already introduced regulatory sandbox is considered useful. At the same time, from a long-term perspective, it is necessary to reform the overall regulation tailored to the characteristics of the new industry. A new regulatory paradigm suitable for the convergence industry and the knowledge industry should be prepared, not the existing regulatory system centered on the labor force and capital market.

Third, in the process of regulatory overhaul, social and public interests such as consumer safety must be faithfully protected. The role of the government is not only to promote industry, but also to protect the safety of the people and protect the social public interest. New technology regulatory innovation to secure new growth engines is becoming a very important slogan, but the importance of the safety of the military should not be ignored because it is too focused on technology promotion. There are times when the government needs to accurately grasp the impact of new technologies and products on people's safety and society, and to strengthen appropriate regulations to stop them. In particular, consumers are likely to be exposed to various forms of distrust and risk because they have little understanding of new technology and their trust has not yet been formed. The government's role in protecting the people's safety should also be emphasized, as a major social problem can arise if the government neglects it.

Lastly, the process of regulatory overhaul must be disclosed transparently and stakeholders must be involved in the process. The granting of special cases by the government to promote new technologies can increase social benefits from a long-term perspective, but from the standpoint of existing industries, complaints may be raised due to unequal application of regulations. In addition, from the consumer's point of view, low trust in unfamiliar new technology products and services is formed, so deregulation unilaterally promoted by the government can incite antipathy and anxiety. The government's unilateral deregulation without social consensus creates distrust in the new market, which may lead to results that are different from the government's intention to activate the market. Therefore, it is necessary to disclose the regulatory reform process and hold briefing sessions to increase understanding of new technologies to engage stakeholders and improve consumer awareness. In addition, the government's ability to collect and analyze information for regulatory reform is limited. To supplement this, a forum for discussion involving academia, private companies, and stakeholders should be prepared.

REFERENCE LIST

곽관훈 (2012),“금융시장의 규제변화: 원칙중심규제의 도입 가능성”, □상사판례연구□ 제25집 제3권, 199-228면.

과학기술정보통신부 (2017), “인공지능 가상현실 핀테크 규제혁신 방안 발표”, Retrieved December 2nd.

계경문 (2017), “제4차 산업혁명 시대의 무인 이동체를 둘러싼 법적 문제점 연구 – 자율주행 자동차와 드론을 중심으로,” □한국전자파학회논문지□, 28(7), 519-527.

김경기⋅홍진석 (2015), “금융기관의 핀테크 대응 추세와 우체국금융에의 시사점,” □우정정보□, 2015(4), 49-71.

김도승⋅전주열, (2016),“규제프리존의 공법적 함의와 정당화요소”, □정보법학□ 제20권 제2호, 201-227면.

김유환, (2012), “행정법과 규제정책”.

김재광, (2014),“규제품질 제고를 위한 규제 개선방안”, □공법연구□ 제42집 제3호, 199-224면.

김정곤⋅이서진 (2016), “주요국의 ICT 융합 의료산업 전략 및 시사점,” □KIET 오늘의 세계경제□, 16(23), 1-15.

김태오 (2017), 제4차 산업혁명의 견인을 위한 규제패러다임의 모색 - 한국의 규제패러다임을 중심으로, 경제규제와 법 10(2).

김태호 (2017), 과학기술 혁신과 시장진입규제 - 신산업 분야 규제개선 논의의 비판적 수용론을 겸하여 -, 경제규제와 법 제10권 제2호.

대한상공회의소 (2017), “신산업 규제애로 실태조사,” Retrieved November 26th, 2017.

박균성 (2015), 획일규제에서 형평규제로의 변화 모색, 공법연구 제43집 제4호.

박균성 (2015), 행정입법에 대한 국회의 수정요구제도, 법률신문 제4326호.

박균성 (2016), 미국 행정입법제도의 시사점 - 사법적 통제를 중심으로 -, 행정법연구 제46호.

송민선 (2014), “동향 : 의료, ICT 융합 관련 규제 현황,” □정보통신방송정책□, 26(23), 71-78.

윤혜선, (2017),“신흥기술(emerging technologies)의 규제에 대한 몇 가지 고찰, □경제규제와 법□ 제10권 제1호.

이광호, (2016),“ICT 융합산업 육성을 위한 규제개선 정책방안”, □규제연구□ 제25권 특집호, 27-56면.

이민⋅안정훈 (2014), “한국 의료기술평가의 현황과 문제점 그리고 개선책,” □대한의사협회지□, 57(11), 906-911.

이재훈, (2016),“과학기술기반 신산업 창출 활성화를 위한 테스트베드 제도 입법 추진 방향”, □KISTEP InI□ 14호, 18-32면.

이혁우, (2017),“새 정부의 규제개혁 방향과 핵심과제”, □과학과 기술□ 577호.

이희정, (2017),“커뮤니케이션 기술의 발전과 디지털 플랫폼 규제”, □행정법연구□ 제49호, 53-74면.

정성문⋅곽기현⋅여영준 (2017), “공정혁신과 제품혁신이 고용구조와 경제성장에 미치는 영향,” □한국혁신학회지□, 12(2), 87-117.

최계영, (2016), “4차 산업혁명 시대의 변화상과 정책 시사점”, □KISDI Premium report□.

최승필, (2011), “규제완화에 대한 법적 고찰: 인⋅허가 및 신고, 등록제도와 네거티브 규제를 중심으로”, □공법학연구□ 제12권 제1호, 317-347면.

최혜옥, (2007),“ 규제 샌드박스 정책 동향 및 시사점”, 과학기술정책연구원, 1-20면.

한국개발연구원 (2015), “규제개혁 시스템 및 정책 만족도 조사 결과”, Retrieved November 26th, 2017.

한국과학기술기획평가원 (2015), □IMD 2014 세계 경쟁력 연감 분석: 과학 및 기술인프라 중심Ⅰ□, 한국과학기술기획평가원.

황태희, (2011),“네거티브 규제와 규제 방식의 개선”, □성신법학□ 제10호, 81-102면.

Albano, G. L., and C. Nicholas (2016), The Law and Economy of Framework Agreements: Designing Flexible Solution for Public Procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alesina, A., S. Ardagna, G. Nicoletti and F. Schiantarelli (2005), “Regulation and Investment,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(4), 791-825.

Amable, B., L. Demmou and I. Ledezma (2009), “Product market regulation, innovation, and distance to frontier,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 117-159.

Bassanini, A. and E. Ernst (2002), Labor Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation: Cross country evidence, Economics Department Working Paper No.316 ECO/WKP(2002)2, OECD, Paris.

Baldwin, Robert/Cave, Martin/Lodge, Martin, (2011), Understanding Regulation – Theory, Strategy, and Practice, Oxford Universiry Press.

Blind, K (2016), “The impact of regulation on innovation,” In Edler, J., P. Cunningham, A. Gök and P. Shapira (eds.), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 450-482.

Carlin, W. and D. Soskice (2005), Macroeconomics: Imperfections, Institutions and Polices, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Crafts, N. (2006), “Regulation and productivity performance,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 186-202.

Croley, Steven. (2008), Regulation and Public Interests – The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government, Prinstone University Press.

Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A. (2002), “The regulation of entry,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1-37.

Edler, J. and L, Georghiou (2007), “Public procurement and innovation - Resurrecting the demand side,” Research Policy, 36(7), 949-963.

Elena Mesropyan, (2017), RegTech Companies in the US Driving Down Compliance Costs to Enable Innovation, LET’S TALK PAYMENTS.

Fenwick, Mark, Wulf A. Kaal, and Erik P. M. Vermeulen, (2016), Regulation Tomorrow: What Happens When Technology is Faster than the Law?, TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2016-024., 1-29.

Financial Conduct Authority, Regulatory Sandbox 4 (Nov. 2015).

Financial Conduct Authority, Call for Input on Supporting the Development and Adopters of RegTech, FEEDBACK STATEMENT 3 (Jul. 2016), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/feedback/fs-16-04.pdf.

FinTech, RegTech and SupTech: What They Mean for Financial Supervision, 2017, TC Notes, Toronto Leadership Centre, 1-18

Griffith, R. and R. Harrison (2004), The link between product market reform and macro-ecoꠓnomic performance, European Economy (European Commission Economic Papers), No.209, European Commission: Brussels.

Griffith, R. and G. Macartney (2014), “Employment protection legislation, multinational firms and innovation,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), 135-150.

Grajek, M. and L. Roller (2012), “Regulation and investment in network industries: Evidence from European telecoms,” The Journal of Law & Economics, 55(1), 189-216.

Guellec, D. and B. P. Potterie (2001), “R&D and productivity growth: Panel data analysis of 16 OECD countries,” OECD Economic Studies, 33, 103-126.

Henson, S., and J. Caswell (1999), “Food safety regulation: An overview of contemporary issues,” Food Policy, 24(6), 589-603.

Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. (1994), Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard (Hrsg.), □Innovation und Flexibilität des Verwaltungshandelns□, Nomos.

Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang (2016),, □Innovation und Recht – Recht und Innovation□, Mohr Siebeck.

Kemp, R. (1998), “Environmental regulation and innovation: Key issues and questions for research,” in F. Leone and J. Hemmelskamp (eds.), The Impact of EU Regulation on Innovation of European Industry, IPTS, Seville, 12-39.

Klapper, L., L. Laeven, and R. Rajan. (2006), “Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurꠓship,” Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 591-629.

Krzyzanowski, D.A., S. Kypreos, L. Gutzwiller and L. Barreto (2008), “Supporting hydrogen based transportation: case studies with Global MARKAL model,” Computational Management Science, 5(3), 207-231.

Morgan, Daniel, Sameer Gulati, Laura Biddle, and Loyal Horsley, (2017), The Future of RegTech for Regulators: Adopting a Holistic Approach to a Digital Era Regulator, Transatlantic, Innovate Finance, 1-20.

Newell., R.G., A.B., Jaffe, and R.N. Stavins (1999), “The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 941-975.

Nicoletti, G. and S. Scarpetta (2003), “Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence,” Economic Policy, 18(36), 9-72.

OECD (1997), The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Synthesis, OECD, Paris.

Popp, D. (2002), “Induced innovation and energy prices,” American Economic Review, 92(1), 160-180.

Rennings, K. and C. Rammer (2011), “The impact of regulation-driven environmental inꠓnovation on innovation success and firm performance,” Industry and Innovation, 18(3), 255-283.

Scotchmer, S. (2004), Innovation and Incentives, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Terleckyj, N. (1980), “Direct and indirect effects of industrial research and development on the productivity growth of industries,” In Kendrick, J. W. and B. N. Vaccara (eds.), New Developments in Productivity Measurement, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 357-386.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2017), “Digital Health Innovation Action Plan,” Retrieved December 2nd, 2017.

Vernon, J.A. (2005), “Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment,” Health Economics, 14(1), 1-16.

Viscusi, K.W. and M.J. Moore (1993), “Product liability, research and development, and innovation,” Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 161-184.