會社分割에 있어 債權者와 少數株主의 保護
Protection of Minor Stockholders & Creditors Regarding Corporate Divisions
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This essay is an inquiry into problematic issues of the current Commercial Law in consideration of better directions to protect minor stockholders and creditors. In order to protect the assets of shareholders and creditors, the current Commercial Law imposes the provision on a public disclosure of the division information, the approval of corporate divisions granted through a general meeting of stockholders, the joint liability and the nullity of the corporation. In addition, shareholders and creditors are also eligible to be protected under general legislative regulations on rights and privileges. Regarding corporate divisions, it is essential to maintain the overall growth of a corporation and to protect benefits of stockholders and creditors through the corporate divisions. Primarily, it is necessary to clearly define provisional terms, since the Commercial Law does not address elucidatory statements in terms of the corporate divisions. Secondly, minor stockholders should be eligible to acquire all the information on the corporate divisions in advance and to reclaim their investment. It is worth noting that corporate division plans are shown as over-intricate and even incomprehensible; therefore, it seems critical to reasonably simplify terms in order to make these more sensible to the party of a corporation. As a report on corporate divisions is reveled, it should be thoroughly reexamined by an independent outside expert. Consequently, corporate division plans must be considered obligatory, and more detailed plans should be made when interests are widely countered to projected figures. Furthermore, it is reasonable to authorize the right of stock purchasing claims in both cases of divisional affiliations and simple division, as the Commercial Law approves the former only One of the other strategies to protect minor stockholders is to apply for a provisional disposition; however, it is not pragmatic to be sanctioned. As for an impartial pact, it is fundamental for a corporation or a council of its directors to bear the burden of proof. Since it is virtually unfeasible for minor stockholders to retrieve their rights after a contract of corporate divisions comes into effect, their rights need to be secured before the event. thirdly, creditors’ protection becomes an important issue in case that the joint liability as to a scope of its information and timeline is excluded. Concerning the joint liability, it is appropriate to interpret it into Joint and Several liability. Regardless of the acknowledgement of spilt companies, it is reasonable to observe a scope of the joint liability before the establishment of divisional registries, and even in the events of contingent liability and enlarged volume Allowances, creditors are protected under the terms of the joint liability. Besides. in case that a contract of the joint liability is made to be excluded and its relevant information is omitted in a process of corporate divisions, a general rule for creditors’ protection should be applied both to a corporation and its split companies to bear consequences. Only for the creditors without opportunity to present their rights for objection due to the term overdue, however, they should be entitled to retrieve their rights.
Abstract
This essay is an inquiry into problematic issues of the current Commercial Law in consideration of better directions to protect minor stockholders and creditors. In order to protect the assets of shareholders and creditors, the current Commercial Law imposes the provision on a public disclosure of the division information, the approval of corporate divisions granted through a general meeting of stockholders, the joint liability and the nullity of the corporation. In addition, shareholders and creditors are also eligible to be protected under general legislative regulations on rights and privileges. Regarding corporate divisions, it is essential to maintain the overall growth of a corporation and to protect benefits of stockholders and creditors through the corporate divisions. Primarily, it is necessary to clearly define provisional terms, since the Commercial Law does not address elucidatory statements in terms of the corporate divisions. Secondly, minor stockholders should be eligible to acquire all the information on the corporate divisions in advance and to reclaim their investment. It is worth noting that corporate division plans are shown as over-intricate and even incomprehensible; therefore, it seems critical to reasonably simplify terms in order to make these more sensible to the party of a corporation. As a report on corporate divisions is reveled, it should be thoroughly reexamined by an independent outside expert. Consequently, corporate division plans must be considered obligatory, and more detailed plans should be made when interests are widely countered to projected figures. Furthermore, it is reasonable to authorize the right of stock purchasing claims in both cases of divisional affiliations and simple division, as the Commercial Law approves the former only One of the other strategies to protect minor stockholders is to apply for a provisional disposition; however, it is not pragmatic to be sanctioned. As for an impartial pact, it is fundamental for a corporation or a council of its directors to bear the burden of proof. Since it is virtually unfeasible for minor stockholders to retrieve their rights after a contract of corporate divisions comes into effect, their rights need to be secured before the event. thirdly, creditors’ protection becomes an important issue in case that the joint liability as to a scope of its information and timeline is excluded. Concerning the joint liability, it is appropriate to interpret it into Joint and Several liability. Regardless of the acknowledgement of spilt companies, it is reasonable to observe a scope of the joint liability before the establishment of divisional registries, and even in the events of contingent liability and enlarged volume Allowances, creditors are protected under the terms of the joint liability. Besides. in case that a contract of the joint liability is made to be excluded and its relevant information is omitted in a process of corporate divisions, a general rule for creditors’ protection should be applied both to a corporation and its split companies to bear consequences. Only for the creditors without opportunity to present their rights for objection due to the term overdue, however, they should be entitled to retrieve their rights.
참고문헌 (41)
- 권기범, "기업구조조정법 제3판" (2002), 삼지원
- 김정호, "상법강의(상)" (2005), 법문사
- 이범찬, "상법개론" (1999), 삼영사
- 이시윤, "민사소송법" (2000), 박영사
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2000), 박영사
- 임재연, "미국회사법" (2006), 박영사
- 권기범, "상법 개정안 회사분할에 관한 몇 가지 문제점", 경영법률 제9집 (1999), 한국경영법률학회
- 권기범, "현행 주식매수청구권제도의 개선방향", 상장협 (2000), 한국상장회사협의회
- 김동민, "회사분할에서 채권자보호를 위한 連帶責任규정의 한계", 상사법연구, 25(4) (2007), 한국상사법학회
- 김동민, "기업의 조직재편에서 발생하는 우발채무에 대한 책임의 귀속- 상법상 회사분할을 중심으로 -", 세무사, 24(2) (2006), 한국세무사협회
- 김병기, "주식회사분할에 있어서 이해관계인의 보호", 기업법연구 제7집 (2001), 한국기업법학회
- 김병연, "주식매수청구권제도의 개선에 관한 연구", 상장협 제48호 2003추계, (48), pp.50~ (2003), 상장회사협의회
- 김성호, "상법상회사분할제도의문제점", 상사법연구, 20(1) (2001), 한국상사법학회
- 김성호, "상법상 회사분할과 주주ㆍ채권자의 보호", 경영법률, 11 (2001), 한국경영법률학회
- 김재문, "현행상법상의 분할에 관한 규정 중 몇 가지 입법론", 기업법연구, 21(3) (2007)
- 김지환, "우리 회사분할법제에 대한 입법적 재검토", 기업법연구, 8 (2001), 한국기업법학회
- 박우호, "회사분할시 채권자보호절차위반의 효과", 판례연구, 19(1) (2005), 서울지방변호사회
- 우홍구, "회사분할제도의 입법론에 관한 소고", 기업구조의 재편과 상사법 (1989), 정문사
- 유남영, "회사의 분할과 채권자보호절차에 관한 소고", 인권과 정의, (318) (2003), 대한변호사협회
- 윤현석, "회사분할제도의 유연성과 편의성제고를 위한연구-상법 및 세법의 개정방안을 중심으로-", 박사, pp.2000
- 정용상, "회사분할의 효과-주주 및 채권자의 이익 보호를 중심으로", 비교법학, 10 (1999), 부산외국어대학교 비교법연구소
- 진태홍, "합병의 효율성과 주식매수청구권" (2006), 한국증권학회발표논문집
- 법무부, "개정상법(회사편)해설" (1999), 서울
- 김준현, "회사살리자한마음으로 해냈다" (2001), 한국경제
- 유지은, "유가증권시장 상장사 분할ㆍ합병 규모 급증" (2007), 데이터뉴스
- 정경진, "코스닥상장사, 합병 증가추세 지속ㆍ분할규모는 줄어" (2008), 아시아경제
- 中東正文, "企業買受ㆍ組織再編と親會社ㆍ關係會社の法的責任", 法律時報, 79 (2007), 日本評論社
- 武井一浩, "會社分割と營業讓渡の實務的觀點からの比較", 商事法務, (1590) (2001), 第1590號
- 肉戶善一, "會社分割立法に關する一考察", ジユリスト, (1104) (1997)
- 江頭憲治郞, "結合企業法の立法と解釋" (1995), 有洋閣
- 島本茂樹, "會社分割法制の創設と實務對應" (2001), 商事法務
- Gloria A.Aluise, "Legalines; Business associations: Adaptable to 5th Edition of the Klein Casebook" (2005), Barbri
- Columbia Law Review Association, Inc., "on the Spin-off as Non-Taxable Distributions", Columbia Law Review, 67(8) (1967)
- J Dine, "Company law(3rd Ed.)" (1998), London
- Joel Seligman, "Reappraising the Appraisal Remedy", Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 52 (1984)
- Karim H. Hanafy, "It's simple math: The Anti-Morris Trust Bill simply does not add up" (2001), Houston Business and Tax Law journal
- Lou R. Kling, "Negotiated Acquisitions of Companies, Subsidiaries and Divisions" (2000), Law Journal Seminars Pr; Lslf edition
- M.Cozian, "Droit des Societes" (1998), Paris
- J.Hennrichs, "Zum Formwechsel und Zur Spaltung nach dem neuen Umwandlungsgesetz" (1995), Zip
- "133"[URL]
