본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

공정거래법상 사업기회제공의 성립요건과 위법성 판단기준 - ‘현대 글로비스 사건’을 중심으로

Standards for Establishment and Illegality Standards for the Provision of Business Opportunity in accordance with the MRFT Act – With a focus on ‘Hyundai Glovis Issue’

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

As the Monopoly Regulation and the MRFT Act(hereafter, ‘the MRFT Act’) was revised in August 13, 2013, Article 23-2(Prohibition on Undue Profit Provision to Specially Related Persons) was newly adopted and has been implemented since February 14, 2014. The MRFT Act, Article 23-2 was enacted to prohibit large corporate group owners and their families from defrauding private interest. The existing prohibition on undue support practices of Article 23, Paragraph 1, Item 7 newly regulates prohibited practices, and one of them is ‘Provision of Business Opportunity’ of Article 23-2, Paragraph 1, Item 2. This provision seems to be similar to ‘Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity’ stipulated in Commercial Law, Article 397-2 but is newly adopted with a separate purpose of prohibition, and therefore for the operation, it needs to develop independent requirements for establishment suitable for the MRFT Act and illegality standards. First of all, Business Opportunity by the MRFT Act means “business opportunity that can be a considerable profit to the company if the company or its subsidiary company seizes it.” This action should be interpreted as the concept including businesses of not only profits the company makes but also preparations for starting a business when the company decides to do it. Also, it needs to include businesses of the internal review stage although neither an internal decision on business execution nor external action has not been made. Next, business opportunity by the MRFT Act means “business opportunity that is being carried out by the company or is closely related to the business to be conducted.” More specifically, it can accept the close relationship in case of ‘businesses that the company can seize easily as it is similar to its current business’ or ‘businesses inevitably involved in the process of executing the company’ business.’ Lastly, it needs to examine the cause for exemption of business opportunity by the MRFT Act. First, “if the company is not capable of performing the business opportunity”, the case can be considered ‘legally incapable’ or ‘economically incapable.’ Second, “if the company receives the rightful reward for business opportunity”, the relevant judgement standard for “rightful reward” can consider ‘market value’ of the business opportunity, which can be assessed with its expected total net profit’ when the company itself carries out the business opportunity. Third, “if the company refuses business opportunity with a reasonable reason, the exemption causes include “the case that the company regards it as unprofitable, or ‘the case that it costs a lot to carry out business opportunity. Besides, 'the approval of the board’ about business opportunity or ‘Business Judgment Rule’ cannot be exempt from the application of the law.

Abstract

As the Monopoly Regulation and the MRFT Act(hereafter, ‘the MRFT Act’) was revised in August 13, 2013, Article 23-2(Prohibition on Undue Profit Provision to Specially Related Persons) was newly adopted and has been implemented since February 14, 2014. The MRFT Act, Article 23-2 was enacted to prohibit large corporate group owners and their families from defrauding private interest. The existing prohibition on undue support practices of Article 23, Paragraph 1, Item 7 newly regulates prohibited practices, and one of them is ‘Provision of Business Opportunity’ of Article 23-2, Paragraph 1, Item 2. This provision seems to be similar to ‘Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity’ stipulated in Commercial Law, Article 397-2 but is newly adopted with a separate purpose of prohibition, and therefore for the operation, it needs to develop independent requirements for establishment suitable for the MRFT Act and illegality standards. First of all, Business Opportunity by the MRFT Act means “business opportunity that can be a considerable profit to the company if the company or its subsidiary company seizes it.” This action should be interpreted as the concept including businesses of not only profits the company makes but also preparations for starting a business when the company decides to do it. Also, it needs to include businesses of the internal review stage although neither an internal decision on business execution nor external action has not been made. Next, business opportunity by the MRFT Act means “business opportunity that is being carried out by the company or is closely related to the business to be conducted.” More specifically, it can accept the close relationship in case of ‘businesses that the company can seize easily as it is similar to its current business’ or ‘businesses inevitably involved in the process of executing the company’ business.’ Lastly, it needs to examine the cause for exemption of business opportunity by the MRFT Act. First, “if the company is not capable of performing the business opportunity”, the case can be considered ‘legally incapable’ or ‘economically incapable.’ Second, “if the company receives the rightful reward for business opportunity”, the relevant judgement standard for “rightful reward” can consider ‘market value’ of the business opportunity, which can be assessed with its expected total net profit’ when the company itself carries out the business opportunity. Third, “if the company refuses business opportunity with a reasonable reason, the exemption causes include “the case that the company regards it as unprofitable, or ‘the case that it costs a lot to carry out business opportunity. Besides, 'the approval of the board’ about business opportunity or ‘Business Judgment Rule’ cannot be exempt from the application of the law.

참고문헌 (13)

  1. 권기율, "상법 일부개정법률안(정부 제출) 검토보고" (2008), 법제사법위원회
  2. 김건식, "회사법 제4판" (2013), 박영사
  3. 김윤정, "특수관계인에 대한 부당이익제공행위 규제의 법적 쟁점과 개선과제", 경쟁법연구, 29, pp.80~107 (2014), 한국경쟁법학회
  4. 김홍식, "회사기회유용금지규정의 해석에 관한 연구 - 도식화에 의한 단계별 고찰을 중심으로", 금융법연구, 10(1), pp.517~560 (2013), 한국금융법학회
  5. 김화진, "기업지배구조와 기업금융 제2판" (2012), 박영사
  6. 이윤석, "회사기회유용의 적용요건과 입법에 대한 검토", 비교사법, 17(2), pp.69~124 (2010), 한국비교사법학회
  7. 이지수, "회사기회유용법리를 지나치게 좁게 해석한 법원 판결의 문제점 및 비판", 경제개혁이슈, 2011(5) (2011)
  8. 임익상, "제315회 국회(임시회) 제2차 법률안심사소위원회 심사자료 -부당내부거래 규제 강화 관련", 국회 정무위원회, ~ (2013)
  9. 장재영, "개정상법상 회사기회유용의 금지", BFL, (51) (2012), 서울대학교 금융법센터
  10. 천경훈, "개정상법상 회사기회유용 금지규정의 해석론 연구", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.143~213 (2011), 한국상사법학회
  11. 최문희, "기업집단에서의 회사기회유용", BFL, (19) (2006), 서울대학교 금융법센터
  12. Brudney, "A New Look at Corporate Opportunities", Harvard. Law Review, 94, pp.999~ (1981)
  13. Edward Brodsky, "Law of Corporate Officers and Directors: Rights, Duties and Liabilities" (2007), Westlaw

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)