법인격남용의 새로운 유형과 법인격부인이론의 적용 - 2005. 7. 7. 선고 서울중앙지법 2004가단273159 판결 및 2006. 3. 30. 선고 서울고등법원 2005나61821 판결과 관련하여 -
Reconsidering the Disregard of Corporate Entity
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article reconsiders the theory of disregard of corporate entity or piercing the corporate veil: the most litigated issue in corporate law. Corporations are recognized as legal entities separate from their shareholders, officers, and directors. In other words, a corporation enjoys the limited liability, and shareholders of a corporation is not responsible for the debt of the corporate entity. Limited liability tempts insiders to exploit the corporation's creditors. Courts have articulated several tests for piercing the corporate veil, such as the instrumentality or the alter ego doctrines. Thus, piercing may happen if some criteria meet: (1) absence of formalities of corporate existence(alter ego), (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) personal use of corporate funds, (4) perpetration of fraud by means of the corporate vehicles. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned traditional principles of piercing the corporate veil may not work properly due to the evasion of the regulation. As a general rule foreclosure sale interrupts the conveyance of the liability of the former entity in Korea. Therefore, the liabilities of the former may not transfer to the latter. Under the United States case law, however, a successor may be held liable for the debts and liabilities of a former corporation whose assets it purchased at foreclosure or judicial sale. It is reconsidered that the piercing the corporate veil may apply to the evasion of regulation for preventing fraudulent foreclosure sale.
Abstract
This article reconsiders the theory of disregard of corporate entity or piercing the corporate veil: the most litigated issue in corporate law. Corporations are recognized as legal entities separate from their shareholders, officers, and directors. In other words, a corporation enjoys the limited liability, and shareholders of a corporation is not responsible for the debt of the corporate entity. Limited liability tempts insiders to exploit the corporation's creditors. Courts have articulated several tests for piercing the corporate veil, such as the instrumentality or the alter ego doctrines. Thus, piercing may happen if some criteria meet: (1) absence of formalities of corporate existence(alter ego), (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) personal use of corporate funds, (4) perpetration of fraud by means of the corporate vehicles. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned traditional principles of piercing the corporate veil may not work properly due to the evasion of the regulation. As a general rule foreclosure sale interrupts the conveyance of the liability of the former entity in Korea. Therefore, the liabilities of the former may not transfer to the latter. Under the United States case law, however, a successor may be held liable for the debts and liabilities of a former corporation whose assets it purchased at foreclosure or judicial sale. It is reconsidered that the piercing the corporate veil may apply to the evasion of regulation for preventing fraudulent foreclosure sale.
참고문헌 (31)
- 손주찬, "상법(상)" (2003), 박영사
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2007), 박영사
- 정동윤, "회사법" (2001), 법문사
- 최기원, "신회사법론" (2005), 박영사
- 김교창, "법인격부인의 법리", 변호사, 9 (1978)
- 서영화, "법인격부인에 관한 최근의 판례검토", 부산법조, 16 (1998)
- 송호영, "법인격부인론의 요건과 효과 - 대법원 2001. 1. 19, 97다21604판결 -", 저스티스, 35(2) (2002)
- 장재형, "판례에 나타난 법인격부인", 판례연구, 15 (2001)
- 정동윤, "법인격부인이론의 적용요건과 근거, 민사재판의 제문제 제6권", ~
- 정동윤, "법인격부인이론에 관한 대법원판례의 추이", 변호사, 20 (1990)
- 정찬형, "법인격부인론(현대민상법의 연구: 威廷 李在澈博士華甲紀念)" (1984)
- 차한성, "법인격부인론", 민사판례연구, 24 (2002)
- 채영수, "법인격부인의 법리, 대법원판례해설(1989년 상반기)", ~ (1989)
- 최준선, "법인격부인이론의 적용요건(상)", 법률신문, (1849) (1989)
- Henry W. Ballantine, "Ballantine on Corporations (rev. ed. 1946)", ~ (1946)
- Phillip I. Blumberg, "The Law of Corporate Groups: Procedural Problems in the Law of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations", ~ (1983)
- Harry G. Henn, "Laws of Corporations" (1983), West Pub
- Stephen B. Presser, "Piercing the Corporate Veil", ~ (2005)
- Charles R.T. O'Kelly, "Corporations and Other Business Associations: Cases and Materials" (2006), Aspen Pub
- Frederick J. Powell, "Parent and Subsidiary Corporations: Liability of a Parent Corporation for the Obligations of Its Subsidiary", ~ (1931)
- Adolf A. Berle, "The Theory of Enterprise Entity", Colum. L. Rev, 47, pp.343~ (1947)
- David H. Barber, "Piercing the Corporate Veil", Willamette L. Rev, 17, pp.371~ (1981)
- Rutheford B. Campbell, "Limited Liability For Corporate Shareholders: Myth Or Matter-Of-Fact", Ky. L.J, 63, pp.23~ (1975)
- David C. Cummins, "Disregarding the Corporate Entity: Contract Claims", Ohio St. L. J, 28, pp.441~ (1967)
- William O. Douglas, "Insulation from Liability Through Subsidiary Corporations", Yale L.J, 39, pp.193~ (1929)
- Frank H. Easterbrook, "Limited Liability & the Corporation", U. Chi. L. Rev, 52, pp.89~ (1985)
- Robert W. Hamilton, "The Corporate Entity", Tex. L. Rev, 49, pp.979~ (1971)
- J. Jarrod Jordan, "Piercing the Corporate Veil in West Virginia: The Extension of Laya to All Sophisticated Commercial Entities", W. Va. L. Rev, 109, pp.141~ (2006)
- Cathy S. Krendl, "Piercing the Corporate Veil: Focusing the Inquiry", Den. L.J, 55, pp.1~ (1978)
- Elvin R. Latty, "The Corporate Entity as a Solvent of Legal Problems", Mich. L. Rev, 34, pp.597~ (1936)
- Robert Thompson, "Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study", Cornell L. Rev, 76, pp.1036~ (1991)