본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

회사기회유용이론 -밀러 사건의 2단계 기준을 중심으로-

The Corporate Opportunity Doctrine focused on the Two-Step Test of the Case of Miller

백정웅
한국상사판례학회 (The Korea Commercial Cases Association)|2008.09|상사판례연구 (Commercial Cases Review)|제21권 제3호|pp. 91-121

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

항변사유defensescorporate opportunity doctrinefairness test2단계 기준interest or expectancy testline of business test회사기회유용이론현존이익 또는 기대가능성 기준사업확장성 기준정당성 기준two-step test
주제분류법학

초록

Since 1900, the corporate opportunity doctrine (hereinafter COD) has been debated and several standards of the COD such as interest or expectancy test, line of business test, fairness test and two-step test, were introduced in the United States. Now the COD is still debated in the United States. The COD refers to the principle of common law, which directors, officers, workers or majority shareholders of the company concerned (hereinafter Directors) are not allowed to usurp the opportunity in the company that they belong to. Recently, there are also some debates on the COD in Korea. However, the act on the COD was not legislated into the Korean Commercial Code. Because the amounts related to the COD in Korea are almost 2.5 trillion won, the discussion of the COD is to be continued very deeply. In this sense, the author examines and analyzes the case of Miller (hereinafter Miller) which introduced the two-step test in 1974 for the legislation of the COD in the future in Korea. The Miller is based on the two-step process, which the first step is whether the opportunity is the opportunity of the company concerned by means of the line of business test and the second step is whether the exploitation is not unfair by means of the fairness test. If the first step is not passed, the second step is not considered. Moreover, while the burden of proof in the first step is upon the party attacking exploitation of the opportunity, the burden of proof in the second step is upon the Directors. Because the Miller divides the same case into two different processes, there are some problems, such as the double application of the line of business test and overlaps between the first step and the second step. Even though there are some drawbacks in the two-step test, the methodology of the Miller’s court of the two-step test is a model lesson for the Korean legal system because the Miller’s court recognizes the problems of several standards of the COD and tries to mix the line of business test and the fairness test. Korea needs to blend several standards of the COD for the far more developed legislation when she tries to legislate for the act on the COD. The author’s recommendation in order to legislate for the sophisticated act is to group some factors for the determination of the COD into some defenses, such as the disclosure & fairness defenses, and the consent or authorization defenses. Therefore, the author agrees to the decision of the Miller’s court, but disagrees to the process to determine the COD. The process to determine the COD has to be substituted for some defenses and the COD shall be determined by an undivided process, such as interest or expectancy test, line of business test, and fairness test. The defenses to determine the COD is continued to be studied in the future.

Abstract

Since 1900, the corporate opportunity doctrine (hereinafter COD) has been debated and several standards of the COD such as interest or expectancy test, line of business test, fairness test and two-step test, were introduced in the United States. Now the COD is still debated in the United States. The COD refers to the principle of common law, which directors, officers, workers or majority shareholders of the company concerned (hereinafter Directors) are not allowed to usurp the opportunity in the company that they belong to. Recently, there are also some debates on the COD in Korea. However, the act on the COD was not legislated into the Korean Commercial Code. Because the amounts related to the COD in Korea are almost 2.5 trillion won, the discussion of the COD is to be continued very deeply. In this sense, the author examines and analyzes the case of Miller (hereinafter Miller) which introduced the two-step test in 1974 for the legislation of the COD in the future in Korea. The Miller is based on the two-step process, which the first step is whether the opportunity is the opportunity of the company concerned by means of the line of business test and the second step is whether the exploitation is not unfair by means of the fairness test. If the first step is not passed, the second step is not considered. Moreover, while the burden of proof in the first step is upon the party attacking exploitation of the opportunity, the burden of proof in the second step is upon the Directors. Because the Miller divides the same case into two different processes, there are some problems, such as the double application of the line of business test and overlaps between the first step and the second step. Even though there are some drawbacks in the two-step test, the methodology of the Miller’s court of the two-step test is a model lesson for the Korean legal system because the Miller’s court recognizes the problems of several standards of the COD and tries to mix the line of business test and the fairness test. Korea needs to blend several standards of the COD for the far more developed legislation when she tries to legislate for the act on the COD. The author’s recommendation in order to legislate for the sophisticated act is to group some factors for the determination of the COD into some defenses, such as the disclosure & fairness defenses, and the consent or authorization defenses. Therefore, the author agrees to the decision of the Miller’s court, but disagrees to the process to determine the COD. The process to determine the COD has to be substituted for some defenses and the COD shall be determined by an undivided process, such as interest or expectancy test, line of business test, and fairness test. The defenses to determine the COD is continued to be studied in the future.

참고문헌 (44)

  1. 고재종, "회사기회의 법리와 이사의 경업행위-미국법을 중심으로", 외법논집, 16 (2004), 법학연구소
  2. 권순희, "상법 개정안 제398조 제3항(회사기회의 유용금지)에 관한 이론적 검토", 상사법연구, 26(3) (2007), 한국상사법학회
  3. 권재열, "회사기회의 법리-2007년 2월 조정된 상법개정안의 비교법적 검토-", 상사법연구, 25(4) (2007), 한국상사법학회
  4. "상법 일부개정법률안(의안번호 7463호)에 대한 의견서"[URL]
  5. "38개 재벌 총수일가의 주식거래에 대한 보고서"[URL]
  6. "재벌 총수일가의 주식거래에 관한 2차 보고서"[URL]
  7. 김원기, "회사기회유용금지의 법리-미국 법원들의 중요 고려요건과 그 적용가능성-", 기업법연구, 21(3) (2007), 한국기업법학회
  8. 박종렬, "징벌적 손해배상에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 26 (2007), 한국법학회
  9. 백정웅, "더피 사건-회사기회유용이론의 정당성 기준-", 기업법연구, 20(3) (2006), 한국기업법학회
  10. 백정웅, "미국의 회사기회유용이론과 우리 상법-델라웨어주의 구스 사건을 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 25(3) (2006), 한국상사법학회
  11. 서완석, "회사기회유용금지이론", 법학논총, 27(1) (2007), 전남대학교 법률행정연구소
  12. 육태우, "회사기회유용이론에 관한 소고", 성균관법학, 19(3) (2007), 성균관대학교 비교법연구소
  13. 정동윤, "회사법" (2000), 법문사
  14. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2006), 박영사
  15. 최문희, "기업집단에서의 회사기회유용", BFL, (19) (2006), 서울대학교 금융법센터
  16. 최완진, "상법 개정의 방향에 관한 고찰", 외법논집, 25 (2007), 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
  17. 최준선, "2006년 회사법개정안의 논점", 기업법연구, 20(4) (2006), 한국기업법학회
  18. 허덕회, "이사의 회사기회유용에 대한 규제-ALI의 Principles of Corporate Governance를 중심으로-,”", 상사법연구, 20(2) (2002), 한국상사법학회
  19. 황인학, "기업정책의 현안과 쟁점-공정거래법과 상법 개정논의를 중심으로-(정책연구 2006-08)" (2006), 한국경제연구원
  20. ALI, "Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations" (1994), ALI
  21. Beam ex rel, "Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. v. Stewart, 833 A.2d 961 (Del.Ch. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  22. Byran A. Garner, "Black's Law Dictionary", pp.147~ (2001), West Group
  23. "Design Strategies, Inc. v. Davis, 384 F.Supp. 2d 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)", ~ (2005)
  24. Demoulas v., "Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 677 N.E.2d 159 (1997)", ~ (1997)
  25. Durfee v., "Durfee & Canning, Inc., 323 Mass. 187, 80 N.E.2d 522 (Mass. 1948)", ~ (1948)
  26. "Energy Res. Corp. v. Porter, 438 N.E.2d 391 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)", ~ (1982)
  27. Eric G. Orlinsky, "Corporate Opportunity Doctrine and Interested Director Transactions: A Framework for Analysis in an Attempt to Restore Predictability", Del. J. Corp. L, 24, pp.451~ (1999)
  28. Eric Talley, "Turning Servile Opportunities to Gold: A Strategic Analysis of the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine", Yale L. J, 108, pp.277~ (1998)
  29. Farber v., "Servan Land Co., Inc., 541 F.2d 1086 (C.A.Fla. 1976)", ~ (1976)
  30. Giulietti v., "Giulietti, 65 Conn.App. 813, 784 A.2d 905 (2001)", ~ (2001)
  31. Guth v., "Loft, Inc., 23 Del. Ch. 255, 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939)", ~ (1939)
  32. Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., "Corporate Opportunity and Comparative Advantage", Iowa L. Rev, 84, pp.211~ (1999)
  33. Largarde v., "Anniston Lime & Stone Co., 126 Ala. 496, 28 So. 199 (Ala. 1900)", ~ (1900)
  34. Longwell v., "CMPM, 627 N.W.2d 396 (S.D. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  35. Matthew R. Salzwedel, "A Contractual Theory of Corporate Opportunity and A Proposed Statute", Pace L. Rev, 23, pp.83~ (2002)
  36. Miller v. Miller, "301 Minn. 207, 222 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1974)", ~ (1974)
  37. "New v. New, 306 P.2d 987 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)", ~ (1957)
  38. Noble v. Lubrin, "114 Wash.App. 812, 60 P.3d 1224 (Wash.App. Div. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  39. "Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris, 661 A.2d 1146 (Me. 1995)", ~ (1995)
  40. Pat K. Chew, "Competing Interests in the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine", N.C.L. Rev, 67, pp.435~ (1989)
  41. "Solimine v. Hollander, 16 A.2d 203 (1940)", ~ (1940)
  42. "Steelman v. Mallory, 110 Idaho 510, 716 P.2d 1282 (1986)", ~ (1986)
  43. "Thorpe by Castleman v. CERBCO. Inc., 676 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996)", ~ (1996)
  44. "Trieweiler v. Sears, 268 Neb. 952, 689 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2004)", ~ (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

회사기회의 법리와 우리나라의 해석론, 입법방안에 대한 제안김홍기한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2008 · 제21권 제2호회사기회유용의 적용요건과 입법에 대한 검토이윤석한국사법학회 · 비교사법2010 · 제17권 제2호회사기회유용에 관한 영국과 독일의 법리 연구천경훈한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2016 · 제34권 제4호개정상법상 회사기회유용 금지규정의 해석론 연구천경훈한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2011 · 제30권 제2호회사기회유용의 법리와 상법 제397조의2현인섭한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2013 · 제24권 제1호회사기회유용이론의 적용기준과 항변사유* - 미국법제를 중심으로 -백정웅한국사법학회 · 비교사법2009 · 제16권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

상법총칙·상행위법 개정안의 주요쟁점신현윤pp. 3-30부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 사용인으로 오인될 만한 유사한 명칭을 사용한 사용인에 대한 상법 제14조의 유추적용가능성 검토 -대법원 2007.8.23. 선고 2007다23425 판결에 대한 평석-권재열pp. 33-56적대적 공개매수에 대한 일본 방어법제의 최근 동향 - 2007년 불독소스 결정을 중심으로 -유영일pp. 57-89자동차보험에서의 피보험자 개별적용 - 보상실무상의 적용을 중심으로 -조규성, 김광록pp. 123-164해상물건운송에 있어서 실제운송인의 법적 지위양석원pp. 165-201
원문 보기