한국에 있어서 집행임원제도의 현황과 향후의 운용방향
An Executive Officer System and Legal Problems in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently, the revised Commercial Law plan has been introduced in National Assembly (repealed automatically by term expiration, 2008). The korean law would have introduced Executive Officer System related to corporate governance. In a word, the purpose of this action is to enforce Board of Directors’ System (in particular, the Roles of Outside Directors and Audit Committee) in Corporation. These measures were introduced on securities law and commercial law in Korea (1999∼2002). However, the effect in korean corporation resulted in inappropriate parts. The Outside Director (Korean Securities and Exchange Law §191.16) introduced to improve corporate management is compulsory and restricted about the numbers. In this reason, each corporation scaled down the number and registered Directors did less and less in Board of Directors. So the business execution of Corporation has been charged of Executive Officers on the basis of the articles or regulation in corporation. The corporations have made use of Non-registered Executive Officers’ System not well-known in korean commercial law, many questions in corporation were exposed in forms of legal status, authority and liability etc. Therefore, we in Korea must introduce Executive Officers System, enforcing the Outside Officers’ independence & profession, and also supervision to board of directors in the future. I propose application of Executive Officers’ System in the followings. ① About the scope of introduction on Executive Officers, korean Commercial Law would regulate the criterion about definite corporations (besides, each corporation’s choice). ② Relating to the status of Executive Officers, generally we would regard them as Directors (revised Commercial Law Plan §408.2 ②). So, they hold Quasi-director’s Status because of there being authorities on decision-making and exercising it in business execution. Furthermore, ③ it is questioned on decision-making scope of Executive Officer’s Authority. Not making a decision uniformly, the law would regulate it according to each Corporate Circumstances. ④ Executive Officers exercise business execution and have decision-making authority mandated from board of director, so I think that necessarily Executive Officers charge with the Corporation and the Third-Party in the same place of the corporate directors.
Abstract
Recently, the revised Commercial Law plan has been introduced in National Assembly (repealed automatically by term expiration, 2008). The korean law would have introduced Executive Officer System related to corporate governance. In a word, the purpose of this action is to enforce Board of Directors’ System (in particular, the Roles of Outside Directors and Audit Committee) in Corporation. These measures were introduced on securities law and commercial law in Korea (1999∼2002). However, the effect in korean corporation resulted in inappropriate parts. The Outside Director (Korean Securities and Exchange Law §191.16) introduced to improve corporate management is compulsory and restricted about the numbers. In this reason, each corporation scaled down the number and registered Directors did less and less in Board of Directors. So the business execution of Corporation has been charged of Executive Officers on the basis of the articles or regulation in corporation. The corporations have made use of Non-registered Executive Officers’ System not well-known in korean commercial law, many questions in corporation were exposed in forms of legal status, authority and liability etc. Therefore, we in Korea must introduce Executive Officers System, enforcing the Outside Officers’ independence & profession, and also supervision to board of directors in the future. I propose application of Executive Officers’ System in the followings. ① About the scope of introduction on Executive Officers, korean Commercial Law would regulate the criterion about definite corporations (besides, each corporation’s choice). ② Relating to the status of Executive Officers, generally we would regard them as Directors (revised Commercial Law Plan §408.2 ②). So, they hold Quasi-director’s Status because of there being authorities on decision-making and exercising it in business execution. Furthermore, ③ it is questioned on decision-making scope of Executive Officer’s Authority. Not making a decision uniformly, the law would regulate it according to each Corporate Circumstances. ④ Executive Officers exercise business execution and have decision-making authority mandated from board of director, so I think that necessarily Executive Officers charge with the Corporation and the Third-Party in the same place of the corporate directors.
참고문헌 (44)
- 강희갑, "會社支配構造論" (2004), 명지대출판부
- 권기범, "(제2판)現代會社法論" (2007), 박영사
- 정찬형, "(제7판)商法講義(上)" (2004), 박영사
- 최기원, "(제11대정판)新會社法論" (2001), 박영사
- 강희갑, "執行任員制度의 導入과 企業環境", 모두발제, 25(4)통권 : 53 (2007), 한국상사법학회
- 강희갑, "株式會社의 경영감독?감사 및 감사위원회제도에 관한 연구" (2002), 한국상장회사협의회
- 권성환, "執行任員制度의 導入에 관한 법적 연구", 석사, pp.2007
- 박진태, "감사위원회제도의 입법적 과제”, 정책연구 02-5, 국회 법제사법위원회", ~ (2002)
- 법무부 법무심의관실, "會社法 改正試案의 主要內容”, 공청회자료", ~ (2006)
- 보도자료, "2007년도 株券上場法人 경영인 현황”, 한국 상장회사협의회", ~ (2007)
- 김문재, "非登記任員의 法的 地位(대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고, 2002다64681 판결)(원심: 대구고법 2002. 10. 11. 선고, 2001나9596 판결)", 상사판례연구, (16), pp.293~337 (2004), 한국상사판례학회
- 김문재, "執行任員制度의 수용에 관한 법적과제”, 현대기업법의 신전개, 박진태교수 화갑논문집", ~ (2003)
- 안택식, "기업경쟁력강화를 위한 社外理事制度의 개선방안", 상사법연구, (21) (2002), 한국상사법학회
- 양동석, "執行任員制度의 도입에 따른 법률문제", 상사법연구, 20(2) (2001), 한국상사법학회
- 양동석, "執行任員의 役割과 法的地位”, 상장협, 한국상장회사협의회", ~ (2003)
- 양만식, "執行任員制度의 도입에 따른 지배구조론의 전개", 상사법연구, 24(1) (2006), 한국상사법학회
- 염미경, "집행임원제도의 도입에 관한 고찰", 법학논총, (29) (2005), 단국대 법학연구소
- 원동욱, "社外理事의 獨立性 강화방안", 안암법학, (24) (2007), 안암법학회
- 원동욱, "株式會社 理事의 기능변화에 따른 執行任員制度의 도입에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2005
- 원동욱, "執行任員制度의 導入方案", 경영법률 (2006), 한국경영법률학회
- 전영미, "執行任員制度에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2006
- 정부제출안, "商法 一部改正法律案”, 국회법제사법위원회", ~ (2008)
- 정찬형, "한국 株式會社에서의 執行任員에 관한 연구", 고려법학, 43 (2004), 고려대학교법학연구원
- 정순섭, "社外理事制度의 개선방안", 고려법학, (4) (2003), 고려대법학연구소
- 정순섭, "株式會社의 支配構造와 권한의 분배", 상사판례연구, 16 (2004), 한국상사판례학회
- 정순섭, "株式會社의 支配構造에 관한 商法改正의 방향", 2005년 춘계학술대회자료집 (2005), 한국경영법률학회
- 차대운, "執行任員制度의 도입필요성과 입법론적 과제", 상장협 춘계호, 49 (2004), 한국상장협의회
- 한국 상장회사협의회, "執行任員制度의 法制化에 관한 意見", ~ (2005)
- 한국 상장회사협의회, "2007년도 上場會社 任員現況(보고", ~ (2007)
- 허 인, "執行任員제도의 導入方案에 관한 법적연구", 박사, pp.2005
- 홍복기, "株式會社에 있어서 執行任員制度의 導入과 그 과제", 상사판례연구, 19 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 홍복기, "理事會와 그 委員會" (1999), 춘계호
- 한송희, "집행임원제도에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2005
- 황근수, "2006년 會社法改正案의 內容과 향후의 展望", 기업법연구, 21(2) (2007), 한국기업법학회
- 近藤光男, "執行役", 民商法雜紙, (4?5) (2002)
- 前田庸, "商法等の一部を改正する法律案要綱の解說", 商事法務, (1623) (2002), 상사법무연구회
- 上村達男, "取締役?執行任員の槪念再構成", 商事法務, (1710) (2004)
- 元本伸, "商法からみた執行役員(上),(下)" (1998), 執行役の法理
- Harry G. Henn, "Law of Corporation", ~ (1983)
- Lynne L. Dallas, "The Multiple Roles of Corporate Boards of Directors, 40 San Diego L. Rev", ~ (2003)
- Melvin A. Eisenberg, "Legal Models of Management Structure in the Modern Corporation Officer, Directors and Accounts", California Law Review, 63 (1975)
- Robert W. Hamilton, "Corporate Governance in America 1950-2000, Major Changes But Uncertain Benefits, 25 Iowa J. Corp. L", ~ (2000)
- Robert W. Hamilton, "The Law of Corporation?, 4th ed", ~ (1996)
- Steven N. Kaplan, "Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance: A Comparison of Germany, Japan and the U.S., Comparative Corporate Governance", ~ (1997)