본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

삼성전자 판례에 나타난 법원의 경영판단의 원칙에 대한 태도와 이사의 책임 제한 - 대법원 2005. 10.28. 선고 2003다69638 판결 판례 평석 -

The Court's Attitude toward the Business Judgment Rule in the Samsung Electronics Case and the Limitations on Directors' Liability

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

In the Samsung Electronics Case, the Court did not admit the liability of directors for purchasing and selling Lee Chun Electronics Co.Ltd., but admitted the liability of directors for selling stocks of Samsung General Chemicals Co.Ltd. It seems that the Court considered the business judgment rule for the issues where the Court denied the liability of directors. For the issues where the Court admitted the liability of directors, the High Court and the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Suwon District Court,and reduced the amount of compensation to 20% of the company’s actual damages. The Court presented the principle of fair damage distribution. Still,the reasons in the decision contain many aspects similar with the requirements of the business judgment rule, stipulated in the Principles of Corporate Governance of the American Law Institute (ALI). Thus, it is regarded that the Court also considered aspects of the business judgment rule for the issues where the Court admitted the liability of directors. It is very reasonable to reduce the liability of directors to a certain degree. It is because if the law burdens excessive liability on directors, capable persons would not like to work as directors, and business projects might become too precautious. There are two ways to reduce directors' liability.One is to stipulate the limitation on directors' liability by law ex ante. The other is to reduce directors' liability in the court adjudication ex post. It seems that the Court reduced directors’ liability in the Samsung Electronics Case because in Korea there is not a law provision for the limitation on directors' liability. This article compares the provisions of the U.S. and Japan regarding the reduction of directors' liability and proposes a proper model for Korean legislation. American laws allow companies to make a provision in the articles of association to restrict the liability of directors. The Principles of Corporate Governance of the ALI stipulates that a provision in the articles of association may limit damages against a director to an amount not less than such person's annual compensation from the company. Under the Japanese Company Law, a company may stipulate the method to reduce directors' liability in the articles of association. In addition, the Japanese Company Law stipulates lowest limits of directors' liability. The limits are different for the CEO, directors and outside directors. Under such regulations, however, there is a concern that the liability of directors might stick to the lowest limit. Thus, this article suggests that the law should allow a company to fix a certain percentage of the company’s actual damages as the liability of directors in the articles of association, and should also stipulate upper limits of director’s liability.

Abstract

In the Samsung Electronics Case, the Court did not admit the liability of directors for purchasing and selling Lee Chun Electronics Co.Ltd., but admitted the liability of directors for selling stocks of Samsung General Chemicals Co.Ltd. It seems that the Court considered the business judgment rule for the issues where the Court denied the liability of directors. For the issues where the Court admitted the liability of directors, the High Court and the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Suwon District Court,and reduced the amount of compensation to 20% of the company’s actual damages. The Court presented the principle of fair damage distribution. Still,the reasons in the decision contain many aspects similar with the requirements of the business judgment rule, stipulated in the Principles of Corporate Governance of the American Law Institute (ALI). Thus, it is regarded that the Court also considered aspects of the business judgment rule for the issues where the Court admitted the liability of directors. It is very reasonable to reduce the liability of directors to a certain degree. It is because if the law burdens excessive liability on directors, capable persons would not like to work as directors, and business projects might become too precautious. There are two ways to reduce directors' liability.One is to stipulate the limitation on directors' liability by law ex ante. The other is to reduce directors' liability in the court adjudication ex post. It seems that the Court reduced directors’ liability in the Samsung Electronics Case because in Korea there is not a law provision for the limitation on directors' liability. This article compares the provisions of the U.S. and Japan regarding the reduction of directors' liability and proposes a proper model for Korean legislation. American laws allow companies to make a provision in the articles of association to restrict the liability of directors. The Principles of Corporate Governance of the ALI stipulates that a provision in the articles of association may limit damages against a director to an amount not less than such person's annual compensation from the company. Under the Japanese Company Law, a company may stipulate the method to reduce directors' liability in the articles of association. In addition, the Japanese Company Law stipulates lowest limits of directors' liability. The limits are different for the CEO, directors and outside directors. Under such regulations, however, there is a concern that the liability of directors might stick to the lowest limit. Thus, this article suggests that the law should allow a company to fix a certain percentage of the company’s actual damages as the liability of directors in the articles of association, and should also stipulate upper limits of director’s liability.

참고문헌 (30)

  1. 김택주, "경영판단의 원칙의 적용요건", 기업법연구, 20(1), pp.41~70 (2006), 한국기업법학회
  2. "상법 제403조", ~
  3. 이철송, "이사의 책임에 대한 몇 가지 이론", BFL, (4) (2004)
  4. 이영봉, "경영판단의 법칙의 수용에 관한 검토", 상사법연구, 19(1)통권 : 26, pp.68~ (2000), 한국상사법학회
  5. 곽병훈, "미국 회사법의 경영판단원칙", 외국사법연수논집, (22), pp.155~
  6. 강희갑, "평이사의 감시 의무", 판례월보, (216), pp.134~ (1988), 판례월보사
  7. 송인방, "경영판단원칙의 상법에의 도입가부에 관한 검토", 법학연구, 14(1), pp.393~394 (2003), 충남대학교법학연구소
  8. 권재열, "경영판단의 원칙-도입여부에 관한 비판적 검토", 비교사법, 6(1), pp.30~
  9. 김기섭, "법인대표의 경영상의 판단과 업무상 배임죄", 판례연구, 18, pp.206~ (2005), 서울지방변호사회
  10. 구회근, "이사의 회사에 대한 손해배상책임 및 판례에 나타난 구체적인 사례 분석", 사법연수원 논문집, 3 (2006), 사법연수원
  11. American Law Institute, "Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations Vol.1", Comment a, 4, pp.173~ (1994)
  12. 이사의 책임강화에 따른 대응방안에 관한 연구, "김상규", 코스닥등록법인협의회, 94~95, pp.코협연구보고서 02-4 (2002)
  13. 강희주, "주식회사의 이사의 책임에 관한 판례의 법리", 증권법연구, 8(2), pp.387~423 (2007), 한국증권법학회
  14. Thomas C. Pelto, "False Halo: The Business Judgement Rule in Corporate Control Contests", Texas L. Rev., 66, pp.846~ (1988)
  15. 최병규, "미국법상 경영판단의 원칙과 우리나라에의 도입가능성", 안암법학, (12), pp.302~ (2001), 안암법학회
  16. 김건식, "은행이사의 선관주의의무와 경영판단 원칙", 민사판례연구, (26), pp.404~431 (2004), 민사판례연구회
  17. "대법원 2007.11.16 선고 2005다58830 판결", ~ (2007)
  18. "대법원 2007.07.26 선고 2006다33685 판결", ~ (2007)
  19. "대법원 2007.07.26 선고 2006다33609 판결", ~ (2007)
  20. "대법원 2006.11.09 선고 2004다41651 2004다41668 판결", ~ (2006)
  21. "대법원 2006.07.06 선고 2004다8272 판결", ~ (2006)
  22. "대법원 2005.10.28 선고 2003다69638 판결", ~ (2005)
  23. "대법원 2005.07.15 선고 2004다34929 판결", ~ (2005)
  24. "서울고등법원 2003.11.20. 선고 2002나6595 판결", ~ (2003)
  25. "대법원 2004.12.10. 선고 2002다60467, 60474 판결", ~ (2004)
  26. "2005.10.28. 선고 2003다69638 판결", ~ (2005)
  27. "서울고법 2000.1.4.선고, 98나45982 판결", ~ (2000)
  28. "대법원 2007.11.30. 선고 2006다19603 판결", ~ (2007)
  29. 김석연, "경영판단의 원칙: 입법화의 전제 조건과 입법의 방향", 기업지배구조연구, (23), pp.102~ (2007), 좋은기업지배구조연구소
  30. "일본 회사법", ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)