본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

차입매수(LBO)와 배임죄의 적용-신한LBO 및 한일합섬LBO 사례와 관련하여-

A Review on Applicability of Criminality of Trust Breach to the Leveraged Buyout(LBO)

0

조회

0

다운로드

30

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

This paper discusses the rationality of criminal approach to the Leveraged Buyout(LBO) transaction. Within a decade the Supreme Court has provided two different results: a crime of trust breach against the directors was rejected in the Hanilhapsum LBO in 2010, but was guilty of the crime in Shinhan LBO transaction in 2008. Many academia analysis those cases and cast a lot of comments in favor and against that this paper deal with. In Shinhan LBO case, the Seoul High Court decided that providing assets of the target company as collateral is not itself the damages of the target company because, depending on the efforts, the normalization of management may be established. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and held that, for the breach of trust, the meaning of 'when-made for property damage’ is the happening of actual damage as well as the occurrence of the risk of causing property damage occurred. That means if there is causing the risk of damage, the breach of trust has been already established even though recovered the damage later. On the other hand, in Hanilhapsum LBO case, Pusan High Court held that even though the intention to repay debt obligations by using the assets of the target company is one of the motives of LBO, legal and economic effects of the merger are also importantly considered. The Supreme Court upheld the decision at this time. Acquiring company and the target company is one unity after merger, and each company's assets cannot be distinguished. Further, the protection of the independence of corporate legal entity and what the company’s losses should be treated as a separate issue. It is not appropriate to simply make a legal decision on LBO transactions considering only the increment or diminution of company's property. With the same purpose, in deciding the adequacy or rationality of LBO transactions, all relevant factors should be considered, including the target company's cash flow, future increases in yield, decrease in debt, or legal or economic effects of the LBO, etc.

Abstract

This paper discusses the rationality of criminal approach to the Leveraged Buyout(LBO) transaction. Within a decade the Supreme Court has provided two different results: a crime of trust breach against the directors was rejected in the Hanilhapsum LBO in 2010, but was guilty of the crime in Shinhan LBO transaction in 2008. Many academia analysis those cases and cast a lot of comments in favor and against that this paper deal with. In Shinhan LBO case, the Seoul High Court decided that providing assets of the target company as collateral is not itself the damages of the target company because, depending on the efforts, the normalization of management may be established. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and held that, for the breach of trust, the meaning of 'when-made for property damage’ is the happening of actual damage as well as the occurrence of the risk of causing property damage occurred. That means if there is causing the risk of damage, the breach of trust has been already established even though recovered the damage later. On the other hand, in Hanilhapsum LBO case, Pusan High Court held that even though the intention to repay debt obligations by using the assets of the target company is one of the motives of LBO, legal and economic effects of the merger are also importantly considered. The Supreme Court upheld the decision at this time. Acquiring company and the target company is one unity after merger, and each company's assets cannot be distinguished. Further, the protection of the independence of corporate legal entity and what the company’s losses should be treated as a separate issue. It is not appropriate to simply make a legal decision on LBO transactions considering only the increment or diminution of company's property. With the same purpose, in deciding the adequacy or rationality of LBO transactions, all relevant factors should be considered, including the target company's cash flow, future increases in yield, decrease in debt, or legal or economic effects of the LBO, etc.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. 김일수, "형법각론" (2003), 박영사
  2. 박상기, "형법각론" (2002), 박영사
  3. 백형구, "형법각론" (2002), 청림출판
  4. 권재열, "경영판단의 원칙: 도입 여부에 관한 비판적 검토", 비교사법, 10 (1999), 한국비교사법학회
  5. 김병연, "이사의 충실의무와 영미법상 신인의무(Fiduciary duty)", 상사법연구, 24(3), pp.61~82 (2005), 한국상사법학회
  6. 김화진, "상장폐지와 차입매수(LBO) 개관", 계간CFO, (6) (2004)
  7. 박태현, "차입매수(Leveraged Buyout)에 있어서의 이사의 신인의무", 인권과 정의, (369), pp.195~229 (2007), 대한변호사협회
  8. 손영화, "LBO", MBO에 관한 법적 문제-이사의 책임 및 소수자주주보호의 관점에서, 2007, pp.8(2), 161~212[DOI]
  9. 송옥렬, "삼성 전환사채 저가발행과 배임죄의 성부", BFL, (36) (2009), 서울대 금융법센터
  10. 송종준, "會社法상 LBO의 背任罪 成否와 立法課題* -신한 및 한일합섬 LBO 판결을 계기로 하여-", 증권법연구, 10(2), pp.319~363 (2009), 한국증권법학회
  11. 신병동, "LBO를 통한 한일합섬 인수사건의 법적 쟁점, 상법개혁의 국제적 동향과 쟁점", 제29회 Juris Forum (2009), 충북대학교 법학연구소
  12. 윤세리, "LBO방식 M&A의 사법처리 현황과 개선방안", 대한상공회의소 특별세미나 자료(2009. 5. 27) 중 지정토론 (2009)
  13. 윤영신, "동양그룹의 합병형 LBO와 배임죄", BFL, (36) (2009), 서울대 금융법센터
  14. 이상돈, "LBO와 배임죄", 한국상사법학회 학술대회자료 (2010)
  15. 이상돈, "차입매수와 배임죄", 한국증권법학회 정기세미나 발표자료 (2006)
  16. 이상훈, "LBO와 배임죄(上) - 손익관계와 출자환급적 성격 및 법인이익독립론을 중심으로 -", 법조, 57(4), pp.105~148 (2008), 법조협회
  17. 이상훈, "LBO와 배임죄(下) - 손익관계와 출자환급적 성격 및 법인이익독립론을 중심으로 -", 법조, 57(5), pp.184~230 (2008), 법조협회
  18. 이창원, "LBO의 기본구조 및 사례분석", BFL, (24) (2007), 서울대 금융법센터
  19. 이철송, "資本去來와 任員의 刑事責任", 인권과 정의, (359), pp.96~116 (2006), 대한변호사협회
  20. 전현정, "LBO와 배임죄 손해를 중심으로", BFL, (24) (2007), 서울대 금융법센터
  21. 최문희, "독일에서의 이사의 의무위반과 배임죄", BFL, (36) (2009), 서울대 금융법센터
  22. 허일태, "배임죄에서의 행위주체와 손해의 개념", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.137~158 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
  23. Loren Goldner, "1973 Redux?: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Decline of Dollar-Centered World Accumulation", 진보평론, 28 (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)