경영판단에 따른 이사의 법적 책임 여부에 대한 판단기준
Judicial Review Tests of Director's Liability for Business Judgment
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Korea, many claims for damages caused by directors' business judgment have been made since late 1990s, and the Korean Supreme Court and lower courts have applied Korean version of the business judgment rule to these cases in order that they judged whether directors breached their duty of care or not. Strictly speaking, the business judgment rule adopted by Korean courts is not the same principle that the business judgment rule is applies in USA, but the rationale underlying the business judgment rule in USA is acceptable in Korea. To encourage directors to perform creative and positive management, it is necessary to permit directors to enjoy a wide range of discretionary power in making business decisions. On the other hand, in order for directors to fulfill the duty of care, it is also necessary to establish a criterion for directors' good performance of the duty of care. It is thought that it is appropriate and reasonable to examine the following requirements in judging whether directors breached their duty of care or not: 1) Being a business judgment, 2) Being informed with respect to the subject of the business judgment, 3) Making business decision in the reasonable belief that it is coincident with the best interest of company, 4) Not having individual interests and conflicts of interests with company in making business decision.
Abstract
In Korea, many claims for damages caused by directors' business judgment have been made since late 1990s, and the Korean Supreme Court and lower courts have applied Korean version of the business judgment rule to these cases in order that they judged whether directors breached their duty of care or not. Strictly speaking, the business judgment rule adopted by Korean courts is not the same principle that the business judgment rule is applies in USA, but the rationale underlying the business judgment rule in USA is acceptable in Korea. To encourage directors to perform creative and positive management, it is necessary to permit directors to enjoy a wide range of discretionary power in making business decisions. On the other hand, in order for directors to fulfill the duty of care, it is also necessary to establish a criterion for directors' good performance of the duty of care. It is thought that it is appropriate and reasonable to examine the following requirements in judging whether directors breached their duty of care or not: 1) Being a business judgment, 2) Being informed with respect to the subject of the business judgment, 3) Making business decision in the reasonable belief that it is coincident with the best interest of company, 4) Not having individual interests and conflicts of interests with company in making business decision.
참고문헌 (43)
- 김건식, "회사법연구 Ⅱ" (2010), 도서출판 소화
- 송옥렬, "상법강의" (2014), 홍문사
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2015), 박영사
- 임재연, "회사법 Ⅱ" (2014), 박영사
- 최준선, "회사법" (2015), 삼영사
- 주주대표소송의 현황과 과제, "강정민", ERRI 경제개혁연구소, ~, pp.ERRI 경제개혁리포트, 2013-8호 (2013)
- 경익수, "현대상사법논집(지석 김인제박사 정년기념논문집)" (1997), 두남
- 권상로, "미국․독일법상의 경영판단의 원칙 도입여부에 관한 연구", 법학연구, (33), pp.241~265 (2009), 한국법학회
- 권재열, "경영판단원칙의 도입여부에 관한 비판적 검토", 비교사법, 6(1) (1999)
- 권재열, "주식회사법대계 Ⅱ(한국상사법학회편)" (2013), 법문사
- 권재열, "대법원 판례상 경영판단의 원칙에 관한 소고", 증권법연구, 9(1), pp.239~262 (2008), 한국증권법학회
- 김건식, "은행이사의 선관주의의무와 경영판단 원칙", 민사판례연구, (26), pp.404~431 (2004), 민사판례연구회
- 김대연, "주주대표소송과 경영판단의 원칙", 상사법연구, 17(3) (1999)
- 김은정, "이사의 자기거래와 경영판단의 원칙", 선진상사법률연구, 54, pp.30~61 (2011), 법무부
- 김홍기, "경영판단기준의 명료화와 운용방안에 관한 연구 - 판례의 분석 및 해석론을 중심으로 -", 경제법연구, 12(2), pp.207~236 (2013), 한국경제법학회
- 김효신, "경영판단원칙과 선관주의의무의 재정립", 중앙법학, 13(4), pp.449~476 (2011), 중앙법학회
- 문정해, "미국의 최근 판결동향에 따른 경영판단원칙의 수용가능성 검토 : 경영판단원칙의 개념에 관한 사법심사의 접근방식을 중심으로", 상사법연구, 27(4), pp.161~199 (2009), 한국상사법학회
- 손영화, "미국법상의 경영판단원칙과 그 도입 여부에 관한 일고찰", 상사법연구, 18(2) (1999)
- 우리나라 주주대표소송의 현황 및 과제, "신희진", ~, pp.경제개혁리포트, 2007-11호 (2007)
- 오성근, "경영판단원칙의 적용기준의 법리에 관한 검토", 기업법연구, 20(1), pp.9~40 (2006), 한국기업법학회
- 정봉진, "이사의 주의의무와 경영판단의 법칙간의 관계에 관한 미국법 고찰", 상사법연구, 21(2), pp.8~366 (2002), 한국상사법학회
- 조지현, "경영판단원칙 － 독일 주식법 내용을 중심으로 －", 경영법률, 21(1), pp.159~185 (2010), 한국경영법률학회
- 최병규, "경영판단원칙과 그의 수용 방안- 최근 독일의 입법 내용을 중심으로 -", 기업법연구, 19(2), pp.107~128 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 최완진, "經營判斷의 原則의 새로운 動向과 韓國商法受用論", 안암법학, 통(26), pp.249~277 (2008), 안암법학회
- 高橋英治, "ドイツと日本における株式會社法の改革" (2007), 商事法務
- 我妻 榮, "債權各論 中卷2" (1994), 岩波書店
- 高橋英治, "ドイツと日本における經營判斷原則の發展と課題(上)", 商事法務 No. 2047, ~ (2014)
- 龜山孟司, "「經營判斷原則」の日本法への導入の可否", 政敎硏紀要, 22 (1998)
- 堀田佳文, "商事法の新しい礎石(落合誠一先生古稀記念)" (2014), 有斐閣
- 宮本航平, "取締役の經營判斷に關する注意義務違反の責任", 私法, (72) (2010)
- 三浦 治, "わが國における「經營判斷」の原則(一)", アルテス·リベラレス, (53) (1993)
- 三浦 治, "わが國における「經營判斷」の原則(二·完)", アルテス·リベラレス, (54) (1994)
- 神崎克郞, "取締役制度論" (1981), 中央經濟社
- 片岡大輔, "取締役の負う經營判斷に伴う法的責任", 立命館法政論集, (1) (2003)
- Lisa M. Fairfax, "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Directors? Revitalizing Directors' Fiduciary Duty through Legal Liability", Hous. L. Rev, 42, pp.392~ (2005)
- Renee M. Jones, "Law, Norms, and Breakdown of the Board : Promoting Accountability in Corporate Governance", Iowa L. Rev, 92, pp.105~ (2006)
- Stuart R. Cohn, "Demise of the Director's Duty of Care : Judicial Avoidance of Standards and Sanctions Through th Business Judgment Rule", Tex. L. Rev, 62, pp.591~ (1983)
- K. Schmidt, "Aktiengesetz Kommentar" (2008)
- Henze, "Prüfungs- und Kontrollaufgaben des Aufsichtsrates in der Aktiengesellschaft", NJW (1998)
- Lutter, "Die Business Judgment Rule und ihre praktische Anwendung", ZIP (2007)
- Mestmäcker, "Konzerngewalt und Rechte der Aktionäre" (1958), Karlsruhe
- Schneider, "“Unternehmerische Entscheidungen” als Anwendungsvoraussetzung für die Business Judgment Rule, Der Betrieb(DB), Heft 13", 2005, 2005
- Ulmer, "Die Aktionärsklage als Instrument zur Kontrolle des Vorstandsund Aufsichtsratshandelns", ZHR, pp.163~ (1999)