본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국의 최근 판결동향에 따른 경영판단원칙의 수용가능성 검토 : 경영판단원칙의 개념에 관한 사법심사의 접근방식을 중심으로

A Study on the Adoption of the Business Judgment Rule based on Recent Trends in U.S. Case Law: focusing on the Approach of Judicial Review on the Concepts of the Business Judgment Rule

문정해
한국상사법학회|2009.02|상사법연구 (KOREAN COMMERCIAL LAW ASSOCIATION)|제27권 제4호|pp. 161-199

0

조회

0

다운로드

20

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

경영판단원칙신인의무fiduciary dutybusiness judgment rule이사의 주의의무책임기준사법자제의 기준.directors' duty of carestandard of liabilitystandard of judicial abstention.
주제분류법학

초록

Abstract

As one of two primary fiduciary duties, the duty of care requires the managers such as directors and officers of a business to make a decision by using the amount of care that people of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances, based on all material information that is reasonably available. To determine whether directors or officers breach their duty of care, Delaware courts has established the business judgment rule, which constitutes a presumption that in making a business decision, directors or officers acted on an informed basis, in good faith, in the honest belief, and the action taken was in the best interest of the company. With respect to directors, the presumption initially attaches to a director-approved transaction within a board's conferred or apparent authority in the absence of any evidence of fraud, bad faith, or self-dealing in the usual sense of personal profit or betterment. As stated by Delaware Supreme Court, this rule applies to the decision process itself and reviews directors' gross negligence in making the substantive decision. Importantly, as mentioned in Aronson, this rule is only available to disinterested directors who neither appear on both sides of a transaction nor expect to derive any personal financial benefit from it in the sense of self-dealing, as opposed to a benefit which devolves upon the company or all stockholders generally. The Korean Commercial Code provides for directors' duty of care which means due diligence. Even if the business judgment rule was not incorporated into the Korean Commercial Code, the Korean Supreme Court appears to adopt this rule in interpreting directors' duty of care in recent cases. Based on courts' opinions on this rule, scholars have argued that this rule should be incorporated into the Korean Commercial Code. Comparing directors' duty of care and the business judgment rule in U.S. and Korean legal regime and cases, this article suggests the applicable possibility of the business judgment rule under the Korean Commercial Code, focusing on the Approach of Judicial Review on the Concepts of the Business Judgment Rule.

참고문헌 (46)

  1. 주주대표소송 제기 현황 및 과제 분석, "경제개혁연대", ~, pp.경제개혁리포트 2007-11 (2007)
  2. 권재열, "경영판단 원칙의 도입여부에 관한 비판적 검토", 비교사법, 6(1) (1999), 한국비교사법학회
  3. 김대연, "주주대표소송과 경영판단원칙", 상사법연구, 17(3) (1999), 한국상사법학회
  4. 김재범, "대출결정시 금융기관 이사의 주의의무와 경영판단의 원칙 -대상판결 : 대법원 2006.11.9. 선고 2004다41651, 41668 판결-", 상사판례연구, 21(1), pp.3~35 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
  5. 石琮顯, "경영판단에 대한 사법적 심사의 한계", 토지공법연구, 15, pp.19~500 (2002), 한국토지공법학회
  6. 손영화, "미국법상 경영판단원칙과 그 도입 여부에 관한 일고찰", 상사법연구, 18(2) (1999), 한국상사법학회
  7. 송인방, "이사의 책임제한과 경영판단의 원칙", 법학연구, (31), pp.263~286 (2008), 한국법학회
  8. 안성포, "理事의 免責에 관한 立法論的 考察 ― 責任免除와 和解를 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 22(2), pp.85~132 (2003), 한국상사법학회
  9. 윤보옥, "미국 회사법에서의 이사의 의무와 경영판단원칙", 비교사법, 7(2) (2000), 한국비교사법학회
  10. 이영봉, "경영판단원칙의 수용에 관한 검토", 상사법연구, 19(1) (2000), 한국상사법학회
  11. 이철송, "회사법강의" (2008), 박영사
  12. 정동윤, "회사법" (2000), 법문사
  13. 정봉진, "미국 회사법상의 경영판단원칙", 경영법률, 13(1) (2002), 한국경영법률학회
  14. 정봉진, "이사의 주의의무와 경영판단의 법칙간의 관계에 관한 미국법 고찰", 상사법연구, 21(2), pp.8~366 (2002), 한국상사법학회
  15. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2008), 박영사
  16. 이사의 손해배상책임과 제한에 관한 연구, "정호열", 한국상장협의회, ~, pp.상장협연구보고서 2003-1 (2003)
  17. 조성종, "이사의 회사에 대한 손해배상책임과 경영판단원칙", 법학연구, (23), pp.163~179 (2006), 한국법학회
  18. 최기원, "신회사법론" (1999), 박영사
  19. 최완진, "經營判斷의 原則의 새로운 動向과 韓國商法受用論", 안암법학, 통(26), pp.249~277 (2008), 안암법학회
  20. Allen, William T, "Realigning the Standard of Review of Director Due Care with Delaware Public Policy: A Critique of Van Gorkom and Its Progeny as a Standard of Review Problem", Nw. U. L. Rev., 96, pp.449~ (2001)
  21. Bainbridge, Stephen M, "Why a Board? Group Decision Making in Corporate Governance", Vand. L. Rev., 55, pp.1~ (2002)
  22. Bainbridge, Stephen M, "The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine", Vand. L. Rev., 57, pp.83~ (2004)
  23. Balotti, R. Franklin, "Rejudging the Business Judgment Rule", Bus. Law., 48, pp.1337~ (1993)
  24. Block, Dennis J, "The Business Judgment Rule: Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors 5th ed" (1998), Aspen Law & Bus.
  25. Branson Douglas M, "Corporate Governance" (1993), The Michie Co.
  26. Brown, Meredith M, "The Business Judgement Rule: Burks v. Lasker and Other Recent Developments", J. Corp. L., 6, pp.453~ (1981)
  27. Chittur, Krishnan, "The Corporate Director's Standard of Care: Past, Present, and Future", Del. J. Corp. L., 10, pp.505~ (1985)
  28. Committee on Corporate Laws, "Corporate Director's Guidebook Third Edition", Bus. Law., 56, pp.1571~ (2001)
  29. Davis, Kenneth B. Jr, "Once More, the Business Judgment Rule", Wis. L. Rev., 2000, pp.573~ (2000)
  30. Dooley, Michael P, "Fundamentals of Corporation Law" (1995), Foundation Press
  31. Eisenberg, Melvin A, "he Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law", Fordham L. Rev., 62, pp.437~ (1993)
  32. Eisenberg, Melvin A, "Background Study for the California Law Revision Commission on Whether the Business-Judgment Rule Should Be Codified" (1995), on file with California Law Revision Commission
  33. Fischel, Daniel R, "The Corporate Governance Movement", Vand. L. Rev., 35, pp.1259~ (1982)
  34. Gevurtz, Frankin A, "The Business Judgment Rule: Meaningless Verbiage or Misguided Notion?", S. Cal. L. Rev., 67, pp.287~ (1994)
  35. Gevurtz, Frankin A, "Corporation Law" (2000), West Group
  36. Gold, Andrew S, "A Decision Theory Approach to the Business Judgment Rule: Reflections on Disney, Good Faith, and Judicial Uncertainty", Md. L. Rev., 66, pp.398~ (2007)
  37. Hamermesh, Lawrence A, "Corporate Officers and the Business Judgment Rule: A Reply to Professor Johnson", Bus. Law., 60, pp.865~ (2005)
  38. Hanewicz, Wayne O, "When Silence is Golden: Why the Business Judgment Rule Should Apply to No-Shops in Stock-for-Stock Merger Agreements", J. Corp. L., 28, pp.205~ (2003)
  39. Hansen, Charles, "The Duty of Care, the Business Judgment Rule, and The American Law Institute Corporate Governance Project", Bus. Law., 48, pp.1355~ (1993)
  40. Johnson, Lyman, "Rethinking Judicial Review of Driector Care", Del. J. Corp. L., 24, pp.787~ (1999)
  41. Johnson, Lyman, "The Modest Business Judgment Rule", Bus. Law., 55, pp.625~ (2000)
  42. Johnson, Lyman P.Q, "Corporate Officers and the Business Judgment Rule", Bus. Law., 60, pp.439~ (2005)
  43. Klein, William A, "Business Organization and Finance 8th ed." (2002), Foundation Press
  44. Knepper, William E, "Liability of Corporate Officers and Directors 6th ed" (1998), LEXIS Law Publishing
  45. Manne, Henry G, "Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economic", Va. L. Rev., 53, pp.259~ (1967)
  46. Posner, Eric A, "Theory of Contract Law under Conditions of Radical Judicial Error", Nw. U. L. Rev., 94, pp.749~ (2000)

관련 논문AI추천

미국법상 경영판단의 원칙에 관한 비판적 소고 - 주주와 회사 이익 보호의 관점에서 -손창일한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2009 · 제22권 제4호미국 판례상 임원에 대한 경영판단의 원칙 적용여부윤성승한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2006 · 제19권 제4호經營判斷의 原則의 適用範圍 - 미국의 사례를 중심으로 -원동욱한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2007 · 제20권 제1호이사의 주의의무와 경영판단의 법칙간의 관계에 관한 미국법 고찰정봉진한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2002 · 제21권 제2호경영판단원칙의 도입 필요성과 입법방향에 대한 제언김현우법학연구원 · 법학논총2025 · 제32권 제3호경영판단원칙과 선관주의의무의 재정립김효신중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2011 · 제13권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

이사의 회사에 대한 손해배상책임 면제 규정의 재해석― 판례와 학설에 대한 비판적 고찰 ―최문희pp. 9-52법인과 조세제도김기영pp. 53-85미국의 LLP 입법과 일본의 유한책임사업조합 입법의 비교김재문pp. 87-123경영진의 손해배상책임과 경영판단 원칙한석훈pp. 125-159영국 회사법상 회계제도에 관한 연구심영pp. 201-234
원문 보기