본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

주주총회 결의제도의 개정방향

On the revision of resolution requirements of shareholders’ meeting

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The relevant provisions on the shadow voting system on the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act were repealed on May 28, 2013, and therefore the shadow voting is no longer in practice as from January 1, 2015. Shadow voting means the voting exercised by the depositary in proportion to the “pro and con ratio” realized at the shareholders' meeting at the request of the issuing company lest the shareholders' meeting should fail due to the insufficient number of shareholders present at the meeting. As a matter of fact, most listed companies are concerned about the failure of the shareholders’ meeting because minority shareholders generally do not take much interest in the specific agendas put to votes in the meeting. They usually do not respond to the solicitation of proxy either. In the aftermath of the abolishment of the shadow voting, it may become much more difficult for the companies to reach any resolution in a shareholders’ meeting. As a possible solution, this writer suggests to introduce the dual class stock system, combined with mitigating the requirements of a valid resolution and abolishing the ‘3 percent rule’. 3 percent rule is an unique regulation in Korea that restricts voting rights of shareholders who holds more than 3 percent of the total issued and outstanding shares, and is applied when electing the auditors or the members of the committee of auditors in the board of directors. Article 409 of the Korean Commercial Code provides: Article 409 (Election)(1) Auditors shall be elected at a general shareholders’ meeting. (2) Any shareholder who holds more than 3/100 of the total issued and outstanding shares, exclusive of non-voting shares, may not exercise his/her vote in respect of such excess shares beyond the above limit, in the election of auditors under paragraph (1). Also, Article 542-12 (Constitution of Audit Committee, etc.) (2) and (3) provide as follows: (2) Listed companies under Article 542-11 (1) shall appoint members of the Audit Committee from among directors appointed by a general meeting of shareholders. (3) In cases where the total amount of voting stocks of listed companies held by the largest shareholder, his special persons concerned, and other persons determined by Presidential Decree exceeds 3/100 of the total number of issued stocks, excluding nonvoting stocks, such shareholder may not exercise voting rights on the stocks in excess when appointing or dismissing members of the Audit Committee who are neither auditors nor outside directors: Provided, That a lower ratio of holding shares may be determined in the articles of association. These provisions should be abolished - otherwise, the companies may not be able to elect their auditors in a suitable time once shadow voting is no longer possible.

Abstract

The relevant provisions on the shadow voting system on the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act were repealed on May 28, 2013, and therefore the shadow voting is no longer in practice as from January 1, 2015. Shadow voting means the voting exercised by the depositary in proportion to the “pro and con ratio” realized at the shareholders' meeting at the request of the issuing company lest the shareholders' meeting should fail due to the insufficient number of shareholders present at the meeting. As a matter of fact, most listed companies are concerned about the failure of the shareholders’ meeting because minority shareholders generally do not take much interest in the specific agendas put to votes in the meeting. They usually do not respond to the solicitation of proxy either. In the aftermath of the abolishment of the shadow voting, it may become much more difficult for the companies to reach any resolution in a shareholders’ meeting. As a possible solution, this writer suggests to introduce the dual class stock system, combined with mitigating the requirements of a valid resolution and abolishing the ‘3 percent rule’. 3 percent rule is an unique regulation in Korea that restricts voting rights of shareholders who holds more than 3 percent of the total issued and outstanding shares, and is applied when electing the auditors or the members of the committee of auditors in the board of directors. Article 409 of the Korean Commercial Code provides: Article 409 (Election)(1) Auditors shall be elected at a general shareholders’ meeting. (2) Any shareholder who holds more than 3/100 of the total issued and outstanding shares, exclusive of non-voting shares, may not exercise his/her vote in respect of such excess shares beyond the above limit, in the election of auditors under paragraph (1). Also, Article 542-12 (Constitution of Audit Committee, etc.) (2) and (3) provide as follows: (2) Listed companies under Article 542-11 (1) shall appoint members of the Audit Committee from among directors appointed by a general meeting of shareholders. (3) In cases where the total amount of voting stocks of listed companies held by the largest shareholder, his special persons concerned, and other persons determined by Presidential Decree exceeds 3/100 of the total number of issued stocks, excluding nonvoting stocks, such shareholder may not exercise voting rights on the stocks in excess when appointing or dismissing members of the Audit Committee who are neither auditors nor outside directors: Provided, That a lower ratio of holding shares may be determined in the articles of association. These provisions should be abolished - otherwise, the companies may not be able to elect their auditors in a suitable time once shadow voting is no longer possible.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. 고창현, "외국 주식회사 주주총회 정족수 요건”을 중심으로", 섀도우보팅제 폐지와 주주총회 의결권제도 개선 토론회」의 토론문 (2014)
  2. 고창현, "상법개정안 중 주주총회 관련 특례규정에 관한 소고", BFL, (27) (2008), 서울대학교 금융법센터
  3. 권기범, "현대회사법론" (2005)
  4. 김교창, "집중투표제의 채택 의제·강행법규화의 위헌성", 상장협, (44), pp.9~ (2001), 한국상장회사협의회
  5. 김동훈, "회사법" (2010)
  6. 김병연, "감사(위원) 선임시 의결권 제한의 타당성 검토", 상장회사감사회 회보, (81) (2006), 한국상장회사협의회
  7. 김병연, "현행 상법상 주식회사의 감사선임의 문제점", 한국경영법률학회 2014년 춘계학술대회 자료집 (2014)
  8. 김순석, "상장회사에 관한 특례규정의 상법 편입에 따른 감사제도의 변화", 상장회사감사회 회보, (112) (2009)
  9. 김재범, "2009년 개정상법(회사편)의 문제점", 법학논고, (33), pp.105~128 (2010), 법학연구원
  10. 문준우, "영국 회사법의 종류주식과 그 시사점", 상사법연구, 29(4), pp.179~208 (2011), 한국상사법학회
  11. 박문옥, "차등의결권 제도 관련 국내외 동향", CGS Report, 4(3) (2014)
  12. 박양균, "차등의결권 제도의 경제학적 분석", 규제연구, 18(1), pp.143~172 (2009), 한국규제학회
  13. 박철영, "종류주식의 다양화를 위한 법적 연구", 박사, 상사법, pp.2005
  14. 심영, "주요국 회사법" (2009), 전국경제인연합회
  15. 서완석, "주식회사의 감사제도에 관한 연구", 기업법연구, 18(1), pp.27~56 (2004), 한국기업법학회
  16. 서완석, "회사법상 의결권 규제의 합리화 방안", 한국기업법학회 2014년 춘계학술대회 자료집 (2014)
  17. 송옥렬, "상법강의" (2010)
  18. 남재우의 자본시장연구원 용역보고서, 국내투자자의주식투자실태와 투자유형별 제도 개선, "송홍선", ~ (2012)
  19. 이기수, "회사법" (2012)
  20. 이숭희, "영업양수도의 새로운 쟁점과 개선방안", 2014년 4개 학회 공동학술대회, 경제환경변화에 대응한 상사법제의 개선방안 (2014)
  21. 2012년 19대 정기국회 입법과제3: 주주권강화방안, "이은정", ~, pp.경제개혁리포트2012-07호 (2012)
  22. 이철송, "2011 개정상법 축조해설" (2011)
  23. 이철송, "회사법강의(제20판)" (2012), 박영사
  24. 임홍근, "회사법" (2000)
  25. 장영수, "전자위임장권유제도의 도입에 관한 법적 연구", 증권법연구, 15(1), pp.169~202 (2014), 한국증권법학회
  26. 정경영, "상법학강의" (2009)
  27. 정동윤, "상법(상)" (2012)
  28. 정동윤, "주식제도에 관한 연구-종류주식을 중심으로-", 학술원논문집(인문․사회과학편), 49(1) (2010)
  29. 감사와 외부감사인의 법적책임 연구, "정준우", 한국상장회사협의회, ~ (2005)
  30. 정찬형, "회사법강의(제3판)" (2003), 박영사
  31. 채이식, "상법강의(상)" (1996)
  32. 최기원, "신회사법론" (2005)
  33. 최완진, "현대상사법논집 (강희갑박사 화갑기념논문집)" (2001)
  34. 최준선, "감사(감사위원회)의 운영에 관한 실태분석과 문제점", 성균관법학, 20(1), pp.311~344 (2008), 법학연구소
  35. 최준선, "개정이 시급한 상법(회사법) 규정에 대한 연구", 기업법연구, 26(1), pp.15~45 (2012), 한국기업법학회
  36. 최준선, "상법상 주주총회 결의요건완화를 위한 제언", 기업법연구, 27(4), pp.65~87 (2013), 한국기업법학회
  37. 최준선, "회사법 제9판" (2014), 삼영사
  38. 한국상장회사협의회, "2013 상장회사 주주총회백서" (2013)
  39. 神田秀樹, "會社法" (2011)
  40. Choper, "Coffee & Gilson, Cases and Materials on Corporations" (2004)
  41. Gower, "Principles of Modern Company Law" (2008)
  42. Saleem Sheikh, "A Guide to the Companies Act 2006" (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)