본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

반대주주의 주식매수청구권 행사시 상장법인 주식의 매수가격결정에 관한 연구 - 자본시장법 및 상법상의 주식매수청구권과 대법원 2011.10.13. 자 2008마264 결정을 중심으로 -

Study on Fair value of Listed Corporation’s Shares upon Dissenting Shareholders’ Exercise of Appraisal Rights

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Appraisal rights provide dissenting shareholders the option to sell their all shares back to the corporation for fair value upon certain fundamental corporate changes. Among the various discussions regarding appraisal rights, some controversy has continued sharply about determining the fair value of the shares when the parties demand and petition the court to determine the fair value of the shares. In determining the fair value of unlisted shares, the Supreme Court of Korea held that when dissenting shareholders demand the court to determine the fair value of the unlisted shares, if there is the actual practices of the objective exchange value appropriately reflected normal trading with respect to the unlisted shares, the courts would consider the exchange value seen as the market price as the fair value of the unlisted shares; however, if there is no such actual practices, the courts would utilize various evaluation methods normally recognized as being about the evaluation of unlisted shares such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on. As some controversy has continued sharply about determining the fair value of the shares, in October 2011 the Supreme Court of Korea determine (대법원 2011.10.13. 자 2008마264 결정) first Supreme Court case in which dissenting shareholders of a listed corporation demanded the court to determine the fair value of the listed shares. In this case, the Supreme Court held that when the parties demand and petition the court to determine the fair value of the listed shares after dissenting shareholders of a listed corporation exercised appraisal rights, the court, in principle, shall determine the fair value of the listed shares with reference to the market price. This Supreme Court’s opinion has evoked various controversial views. Especially, some commentators has criticized that in order to determine the fair price of the listed shares, the courts must consider all the elements such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on, because pure market price alone can not determine the purchase price of publicly traded shares due to the practical limitations of the stock market. This article focuses on discussing whether the courts base solely on the market price, or the courts must consider all the elements such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on when determining the fair value of the listed shares. In detail, part II reviews detail facts and holdings of the Supreme Court’s case(2011.10.13. 자 2008마264 결정). Part III addresses statutes and regulations regarding appraisal rights, and the cases of the Supreme Court about determining the fair value of the unlisted shares for the reference in determining the fair value of the listed shares. Part IV reviews how to determine the fair value of the shares in the United States for the comparative legal study. Part V, discusses various controversial views which has criticised the Supreme Court’s holding that the fair value of the listed shares shall be determined with reference to the market price. Lastly, as a conclusion, proposes that the court, in principle, shall determine the fair value of the listed shares with reference to the market price.

Abstract

Appraisal rights provide dissenting shareholders the option to sell their all shares back to the corporation for fair value upon certain fundamental corporate changes. Among the various discussions regarding appraisal rights, some controversy has continued sharply about determining the fair value of the shares when the parties demand and petition the court to determine the fair value of the shares. In determining the fair value of unlisted shares, the Supreme Court of Korea held that when dissenting shareholders demand the court to determine the fair value of the unlisted shares, if there is the actual practices of the objective exchange value appropriately reflected normal trading with respect to the unlisted shares, the courts would consider the exchange value seen as the market price as the fair value of the unlisted shares; however, if there is no such actual practices, the courts would utilize various evaluation methods normally recognized as being about the evaluation of unlisted shares such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on. As some controversy has continued sharply about determining the fair value of the shares, in October 2011 the Supreme Court of Korea determine (대법원 2011.10.13. 자 2008마264 결정) first Supreme Court case in which dissenting shareholders of a listed corporation demanded the court to determine the fair value of the listed shares. In this case, the Supreme Court held that when the parties demand and petition the court to determine the fair value of the listed shares after dissenting shareholders of a listed corporation exercised appraisal rights, the court, in principle, shall determine the fair value of the listed shares with reference to the market price. This Supreme Court’s opinion has evoked various controversial views. Especially, some commentators has criticized that in order to determine the fair price of the listed shares, the courts must consider all the elements such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on, because pure market price alone can not determine the purchase price of publicly traded shares due to the practical limitations of the stock market. This article focuses on discussing whether the courts base solely on the market price, or the courts must consider all the elements such as market value method, the net asset value method, earnings value method, and so on when determining the fair value of the listed shares. In detail, part II reviews detail facts and holdings of the Supreme Court’s case(2011.10.13. 자 2008마264 결정). Part III addresses statutes and regulations regarding appraisal rights, and the cases of the Supreme Court about determining the fair value of the unlisted shares for the reference in determining the fair value of the listed shares. Part IV reviews how to determine the fair value of the shares in the United States for the comparative legal study. Part V, discusses various controversial views which has criticised the Supreme Court’s holding that the fair value of the listed shares shall be determined with reference to the market price. Lastly, as a conclusion, proposes that the court, in principle, shall determine the fair value of the listed shares with reference to the market price.

참고문헌 (38)

  1. 최병규, "회사법" (2011), 박영사
  2. 이철송, "회사법강의(제20판)" (2012), 박영사
  3. 임재연, "미국기업법" (2009), 박영사
  4. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제15판)" (2012), 박영사
  5. 최기원, "신회사법론" (2012), 박영사
  6. 최준선, "회사법 제7판" (2012), 삼영사
  7. 강헌, "반대주주의 주식매수청구권제도의 제도적 타당성에 관한 소고, In 세계화시대의 기업법: 횡천 이기수선생 정년기념" (2011), 박영사
  8. 權奇範, "株式會社 合倂의 公正性 確保에 관한 硏究: 株主保護를 中心으로", 박사, 법학, pp.1988
  9. 김건식, "미국회사법상 반대주주의 주식매수청구권", 서울대학교 법학, 34(3-4) (1993)
  10. 김근수, "주식매수청구권 행사 결정요인에 대한 분석", Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 36(3), pp.463~494 (2007), 한국증권학회
  11. 김동민, "會社分割에 있어서 分割反對株主의 株式買受請求權에 관한 小考", 기업법연구, 21(4), pp.410~438 (2007), 한국기업법학회
  12. 김상근, "주주총회결의하자 소송에 관한 실무적 고찰", 민사재판의 제문제, 12 (2003), 민사실무연구회
  13. 김재형, "미국 델라웨어주법상 합병시의 소수파주주 보호", 비교사법, 9(4), pp.~22 (2002), 한국비교사법학회
  14. 김진욱, "주식매수청구권제도 개선의 필요성 - 자본시장법상의 주식매수청구권 특례조항을 중심으로 -", 기업법연구, 24(3), pp.161~192 (2010), 한국기업법학회
  15. 김홍기, "현행 주식가치평가의 법적 쟁점과 ‘공정한 가액’에 관한 연구", 상사법연구, 30(1), pp.159~205 (2011), 한국상사법학회
  16. 김화진, "주식매수청구권의 본질과 주식매수가액의 결정", 인권과 정의, (393), pp.29~45 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  17. 魯赫俊, "合倂으로 인한 株式買受請求時의 價格決定", 민사판례연구, 30(30), pp.607~638 (2008), 민사판례연구회
  18. 두성규, "주식매수청구권의 법리와 절차상 문제점", 경북대 법학, (2) (1998), 경북대학교 법학연구소
  19. 서규석, "주식매수청구권행사시 매수가격에 관한 연구", 기업법연구, 4 (1999)
  20. 양기진, "반대주주의 주식매수청구권에 관한 연구", 기업법연구, 26(1), pp.185~219 (2012), 한국기업법학회
  21. 오창석, "주식매수청구권의 행사와 매수가격결정에 관한 연구", 법학논총, 24, pp.307~329 (2010), 법학연구소
  22. 이성웅, "미국회사법상 주식매수청구권의 기능", 기업법연구, 9 (2001)
  23. 이승철, "주식매수청구권에 관한 증권거래법 규정에 대한비판적 검토", 저스티스, (105), pp.81~103 (2008), 한국법학원
  24. 주기종, "주식매수청구권에 관한 소고", 청주법학, 31(2) (2009)
  25. 최승재, "주식가치 평가와 공정한 가액에 대한 고찰", 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구, 2(1) (2010)
  26. Avid S. Reid, "Dissenter's Rights: An Analysis Exposing the Judicial Myth of Awarding Only Simple Interest", Ariz. L. Rev, 36, pp.515~ (1994)
  27. Barry M. Wertheimer, "The Purpose of the Shareholders' Appraisal Remedy", Tenn. L. Rev, 65 (1998)
  28. Barry M. Wertheimer, "The Shareholders’ Appraisal Remedy and How Courts Determine Fair Value", Duke L.J, 47, pp.613~ (1998)
  29. Bayless Manning, "The Shareholder's Appraisal Remedy : An Essay for Frank Coker", Yale L. J, 72, pp.223~ (1962)
  30. Daniel Fischel, "The Appraisal Remedy in Corporate Law", Am. B. Found. Res. J, 1983, pp.875~ (1983)
  31. Hideki Kanda, "The Appraisal Remedy and the Goals of Corporate Law", UCLA L. Rev, 32, pp.429~ (1985)
  32. Joel Seligman, "Reappraising the Appraisal Remedy", Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 52, pp.829~ (1984)
  33. Mary Siegel, "The Erosion of the Law of Controlling Shareholders", Del. J. Corp. L, 24, pp.27~ (1999)
  34. Mary Siegel, "Back to the Future: Appraisal Rights in the Twenty-First Century", Harv. J. on Legis, 32, pp.79~ (1995)
  35. Peter V. Letsou, "The Role of Appraisal in Corporate Law", B.C. L. Rev, 39, pp.1121~ (1998)
  36. Randall S. Thomas, "Revising the Delaware Appraisal Statute", Del L. Rev, 3, pp.1~ (2000)
  37. Robert B. Tompson, "Delaware, the Feedd, and the Stock Exchange: Challenges to the First State as First in Corporate Law", Del. J. Corp. L, 29, pp.779~ (2004)
  38. Robert B. Thompson, "Exit, Liquidity, and Majority Rule: Appraisal's Role in Corporate Law", Geo. L.J, 84, pp.1~ (1995)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)