株主平等의 原則에 대한 再考
A Study on the Principle of the Equal Treatment of Shareholders
0
조회
0
다운로드
22
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In most states of America there is not a provision on the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders. The protect of the minority apeals to the fiduciary duty of directors or controlling shareholders. The breach of such fiduciary duties may amount to 'fraud on the minority' or 'unfair'. In the Germany the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders has been accepted as the natural and universal principles. But before the 1970's the equal treatment of shareholders was formal equality. The German federal court delivered judgment which depends on substantial equality in 1977. The Japanese Company Law has a provision on the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders which shareholders should be treated equally along to the number and content of his possessing shares. In the construction of this provision it is argued that the equal treatment of shareholders of this provision is substantial equality. The Korean Commerce Law has no provision on this principle, but it is fundamental principle in the company law. In Korea the equal treatment of shareholders is asserted always proportional equality. But this argument is not reasonable in the poison pill or between various class shares. So it is desirable that in such cases the principle should be understood to substantial equality which is to prohibit irrational discrimination or to be possible to discriminate if it is reasonable rational ground.
Abstract
In most states of America there is not a provision on the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders. The protect of the minority apeals to the fiduciary duty of directors or controlling shareholders. The breach of such fiduciary duties may amount to 'fraud on the minority' or 'unfair'. In the Germany the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders has been accepted as the natural and universal principles. But before the 1970's the equal treatment of shareholders was formal equality. The German federal court delivered judgment which depends on substantial equality in 1977. The Japanese Company Law has a provision on the principle of the equal treatment of shareholders which shareholders should be treated equally along to the number and content of his possessing shares. In the construction of this provision it is argued that the equal treatment of shareholders of this provision is substantial equality. The Korean Commerce Law has no provision on this principle, but it is fundamental principle in the company law. In Korea the equal treatment of shareholders is asserted always proportional equality. But this argument is not reasonable in the poison pill or between various class shares. So it is desirable that in such cases the principle should be understood to substantial equality which is to prohibit irrational discrimination or to be possible to discriminate if it is reasonable rational ground.
참고문헌 (40)
- 권종호, "방어수단으로서 종류주식 ― 2006년 개정안과 2008년 개정안을 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 27(2)통권 : 59, pp.51~77 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 김순석, "종류주식의 다양화와 자금조달의 유연성에 관한 법적 쟁점 분석", 상사법연구, 27(2)통권 : 59, pp.9~50 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 김태진, "주주평등원칙에 관한 소고", 기업법연구, 22(3), pp.9~52 (2008), 한국기업법학회
- 김택주, "상법 개정안상 포이즌 필의 검토", 상사법연구, 29(2), pp.29~78 (2010), 한국상사법학회
- 송옥렬, "포이즌필의 導入에 따른 法政策的 爭點", 상사법연구, 27(2), pp.79~122 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 유영일, "차등의결권주에 관한 연구 - 도입필요성을 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 21(4), pp.93~135 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 윤영신, "1주1의결권원칙과 차등의결권원칙에 대한 검토", 상사법연구, 28(1), pp.203~241 (2009), 한국상사법학회
- 이영철, "포이즌필과 주주평등의 원칙", 기업법연구, 23(3), pp.191~224 (2009), 한국기업법학회
- 최문희, "일본의 포이즌 필 발행사례와 법적 쟁점-불독 소스 사건에 관한 최고재판소 판례를 중심으로", BFL, (26) (2007), 서울대학교 금융법센터
- 최완진, "포이즌 필의 도입에 따른 상법개정안에 관한 고찰", 상사법연구, 28(4), pp.191~221 (2010), 한국상사법학회
- 徐憲濟, (2007), 법문사
- 李哲松, "第18版 會社法 講義" (2010), 박영사
- 鄭燦亨, "第13版 商法講義(上)" (2010), 博英社
- 崔基元, "第13大訂版 新會社法論" (2009), 博英社
- 崔埈璿, "제4판 會社法" (2009), 삼영사
- 상장자료실, "차등의결권제도의 각국 사례와 검토 과제", 상장 (2008), 한국상장회사협의회
- 高橋英治, "ドイツ法における株主平等原則", 民商法雜誌 (2008)
- 浜田道代, "差別的行使條件·差別的取得條項付新株豫約權無償割當てによゐ買收防禦策と株主平等原則-ブルドツクヮ-ス事件-", 民商法雜誌, 139(2) (2008)
- 宋本烝治, "株式會社に於ける定款自由の原則と其例外. in: 商法解釋の諸問題" (1995), 有斐閣
- 森淳二郞, "會社法における主要論点の評價" (2006), 中央經濟社
- 南保勝美, "新會社法における株主平等原則の意義と機能", 法律論叢, 79(2) (2007), 明治大學校 法學硏究所
- 木俣由美, "株主平等の原則と株式平等の原則. in: 企業法の課題と展望(森本滋,先生還曆記念)" (2009), 商事法務
- 相澤哲, "一問一答 新·會社法" (2005), 商事法務
- 森本滋, "會社法の下における株主平等原則", 商事法務, (1825) (2008)
- 大杉謙一, "新會社法における株主平等の原則 -株主優待制度·買收防衛策·長期株式保有の獎勵策などゑ題材に", 宋澤還 曆記念論文集 會社法と商事法務 (2008)
- 上村達男, "株主平等原則. in: 特別講義商法Ⅰ" (1995), 有斐閣
- 鈴木竹雄, "會社法 第三版" (1994), 有斐閣
- 大隅健一郞, "會社法論 上卷 第三版" (1991), 有斐閣
- 神田秀樹, "會社法 初版" (2001), 弘文堂
- 前田庸, "會社法入門 第11版" (2006), 有斐閣
- Fleischer, "Aktiengesetz Kommentar, 1" (2008), Band
- Götz Hueck, "Der Grundsatz der gleichmäβgen Behandlung im Privatrecht", ~ (1958)
- Harry G. Henn, "「Laws of Corporations」 Third Edition" (1983), St. Paul. Minn West Publishin Co.
- "Hüffer, Aktiengesetz, 7. Aufl., 2006, §53a Rdrn. 9", ~ (2006)
- "Kropff, Textausgabe des Aktiengesetzes", ~ (1965)
- Laband, "Der Begriff der Sonderrechte nach Deutschem Reichsrecht" (1874), Annalen des Deutschen Reichs
- Ludwig Raiser, "Der Gleichheitsgrundsatz im privatrecht", ZHR, 111 (1948)
- Michael Hoffmann-Becking, "Münchener Handbuch des Gessellschaftsrechts, Band 4 Aktiengessellschaft, 3. Aufl", ~ (2007)
- Otto von Gierke, "Die Gennossenschaftstheorie und die deutsche Rechtprechung", ~ (1887)
- "Verse, Der Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz im Recht der Kapitalgesellschaften", ~ (2006)