판례를 중심으로 본 營業讓渡의 개념 및 판단기준
Case Studies on Concepts and Criteria of the Transfer of Business Assets
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper discusses the concepts and criteria of the transfer of business assets, of which the Korean Commercial Code does not provide the clear meanings, by reviewing several Supreme Court‘s decisions. In general, business transfer agreement enables the seller to transfer her rights and obligations to the buyer by exchange with the full committed payments. The Supreme Court has repeated as a criterion in the business sales that business property should be transferred as a whole, because individual sale of assets cannot achieve the statutory goal of business property transfer. In another words, the transfer of a business should be treated as a 'Transfer of a business as a going concern' when there is selling or otherwise transferring a business, or part of a business. In reality, one of the most important and difficult things is how to hold business identity intact. To accomplish the purpose of maintenance of business identity, in a transfer of business, human and material resources should be transferred functionally as a whole. Particularly, if the auction process is involved in the sale of business assets, business debt will not be delegated properly. In case of using the auction process, business transfer may be exploited to avoid business debt. To solve these problematic situations, the Court needs to be more cautious in dealing with actual cases that involve the auction process. The agreement to “Sale of All Assets Outside the Course of Business” must express explicitly that it is the business transfer agreement or it can be regarded implicitly as the business transfer agreement. Therefore, the court has currently required that the identity of business by delivering human and material resources as a whole should be maintained and business transfer agreement must exist explicitly or implicitly.
Abstract
This paper discusses the concepts and criteria of the transfer of business assets, of which the Korean Commercial Code does not provide the clear meanings, by reviewing several Supreme Court‘s decisions. In general, business transfer agreement enables the seller to transfer her rights and obligations to the buyer by exchange with the full committed payments. The Supreme Court has repeated as a criterion in the business sales that business property should be transferred as a whole, because individual sale of assets cannot achieve the statutory goal of business property transfer. In another words, the transfer of a business should be treated as a 'Transfer of a business as a going concern' when there is selling or otherwise transferring a business, or part of a business. In reality, one of the most important and difficult things is how to hold business identity intact. To accomplish the purpose of maintenance of business identity, in a transfer of business, human and material resources should be transferred functionally as a whole. Particularly, if the auction process is involved in the sale of business assets, business debt will not be delegated properly. In case of using the auction process, business transfer may be exploited to avoid business debt. To solve these problematic situations, the Court needs to be more cautious in dealing with actual cases that involve the auction process. The agreement to “Sale of All Assets Outside the Course of Business” must express explicitly that it is the business transfer agreement or it can be regarded implicitly as the business transfer agreement. Therefore, the court has currently required that the identity of business by delivering human and material resources as a whole should be maintained and business transfer agreement must exist explicitly or implicitly.
참고문헌 (11)
- 김성태, "상법총칙상행위강론" (2002), 법문사
- 손주찬, "상법(상)" (2003), 박영사
- 이기수, "상법총칙ㆍ상행위법" (2010), 박영사
- 이철송, "상법총칙ㆍ상행위" (2010), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법(상)" (2009), 박영사
- 최준선, "상법총칙ㆍ상행위법" (2008), 삼영사
- 권기훈, "영업양수인의 책임 요건으로서의 상호의 계속 사용", 한양법학, (25), pp.209~230 (2009), 한양법학회
- 김병연, "법인격남용의 새로운 유형과 법인격부인이론의 적용 - 2005. 7. 7. 선고 서울중앙지법 2004가단273159 판결 및 2006. 3. 30. 선고 서울고등법원 2005나61821 판결과 관련하여", 상사판례연구, 21(1), pp.109~141 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 임재호, "영업양도의 개념과 판단기준-대상판결:대법원 2005. 7. 22. 선고 2005다602 판결", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.1163~1192 (2007), 법학연구소
- 이철송, "체육시설의 양도와 회원권 승계의 법리", 인권과 정의, (372), pp.91~112 (2007), 대한변호사협회
- 이동신, "상법상 영업양도의 의미와 그 판단기준 및 이에 관한 사례", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 57 (2006)
