본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

집행임원제도하의 임원보수 규제방안-미국 경기부양법(Stimulus Bill)상의 임원보수 제한규정을 중심으로-

Research on How to Regulate Executive Compensation under Executive Officer System in Korea -Some Implications from compensation-related provisions under Stimulus Bill in U.S.-

0

조회

0

다운로드

12

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

In this article, I analyze the executive compensation provision (§ 408-2(3)(6)) under the proposed revised version of 2008 Korean Commercial Code, and demonstrate its shortcomings in order to effectively regulate the compensation for executive officers under the proposed executive officer system in Korea. I also introduce the U.S. regulations which has been recently promulgated as a part of TARP to prevent excessive payments to poorly performed executives in U.S. publicly-held corporations, such as EESA, ARRA, and CFA. Among these regulations, my article focuses on the compensation-related provisions under ARRA which is affecting most of the TARP recipients under the U.S. stimulus plan. According to the ARRA, corporations which received a significant taxpayer fund under the TARP, must observe stricter compensation policies mandated under the ARRA, such as prohibition of certain types of compensation -bonuses, retention awards, incentive compensation,golden parachutes and luxury expenditures-, improved compensation committee requirements,Say-on-Pay and compensation clawback. Among these requirements, Say-on-Pay policy has been considered most effective method to curtail excessive executive compensation practices. Specifically, in the wake of recent financial crisis and global economic crisis, the growing public criticism on the incessant upward trend of executive compensation demands more fundamental remedy to curb compensation problems. Recognizing that there are several systemic flaws in current compensation system, such as lack of linkage between compensation and performance,executive’s short-termism, and lack of director’s accountability to shareholders, shareholder activists as well as many politicians have suggested the adoption of Say-on-Pay policies. After a full discussion on the details of the executive compensation provision under the proposed revised version of 2008 Korean Commercial Code (§ 408-2(3)(6)), I recommend that the Korean Commercial Code implement more detailed executive compensation provisions regarding compensation setting process and the disclosure of each executive’s detailed payments, not the total amounts paid to all directors and executives. In addition,after adopting a executive officer system in Korea, the Code should also maintain current compensation approval system in which shareholders should approve the compensation plan for directors with binding effect. Without the approval by shareholders, we may confront the same compensation crisis like the U.S. and Eurpope. Finally, I stress in this article that well-established executive compensation system would function as a fundamental basis to improve our corporate governance structure.

Abstract

In this article, I analyze the executive compensation provision (§ 408-2(3)(6)) under the proposed revised version of 2008 Korean Commercial Code, and demonstrate its shortcomings in order to effectively regulate the compensation for executive officers under the proposed executive officer system in Korea. I also introduce the U.S. regulations which has been recently promulgated as a part of TARP to prevent excessive payments to poorly performed executives in U.S. publicly-held corporations, such as EESA, ARRA, and CFA. Among these regulations, my article focuses on the compensation-related provisions under ARRA which is affecting most of the TARP recipients under the U.S. stimulus plan. According to the ARRA, corporations which received a significant taxpayer fund under the TARP, must observe stricter compensation policies mandated under the ARRA, such as prohibition of certain types of compensation -bonuses, retention awards, incentive compensation,golden parachutes and luxury expenditures-, improved compensation committee requirements,Say-on-Pay and compensation clawback. Among these requirements, Say-on-Pay policy has been considered most effective method to curtail excessive executive compensation practices. Specifically, in the wake of recent financial crisis and global economic crisis, the growing public criticism on the incessant upward trend of executive compensation demands more fundamental remedy to curb compensation problems. Recognizing that there are several systemic flaws in current compensation system, such as lack of linkage between compensation and performance,executive’s short-termism, and lack of director’s accountability to shareholders, shareholder activists as well as many politicians have suggested the adoption of Say-on-Pay policies. After a full discussion on the details of the executive compensation provision under the proposed revised version of 2008 Korean Commercial Code (§ 408-2(3)(6)), I recommend that the Korean Commercial Code implement more detailed executive compensation provisions regarding compensation setting process and the disclosure of each executive’s detailed payments, not the total amounts paid to all directors and executives. In addition,after adopting a executive officer system in Korea, the Code should also maintain current compensation approval system in which shareholders should approve the compensation plan for directors with binding effect. Without the approval by shareholders, we may confront the same compensation crisis like the U.S. and Eurpope. Finally, I stress in this article that well-established executive compensation system would function as a fundamental basis to improve our corporate governance structure.

참고문헌 (26)

  1. 문상일, "任員報酬制度의 改革 -미국의 株主承認權(Say-on-Pay) 제도를 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 28(3), pp.411~440 (2009), 한국상사법학회
  2. 양동석, "집행임원제도의 도입에 따른 법률문제", 상사법연구, 20(2) (2001), 한국상사법학회
  3. 양만식, "집행임원제도의 도입에 따른 지배구조론의 전개", 상사법연구, 24(1), pp.177~231 (2005), 한국상사법학회
  4. 정찬형, "한국 주식회사에서의 집행임원에 관한 연구", 고려법학, 43 (2004), 고려대학교법학연구원
  5. 차대운, "집행임원제도의 도입필요성과 입법론적 과제", 상장협, 49 (2004), 한국상장회사협의회
  6. 최문희, "理事의 報酬에 관한 規定의 檢討", 법학논총, 24(3), pp.623~650 (2007), 법학연구소
  7. 홍복기, "회사법강의" (2008), 법문사
  8. 홍복기, "주식회사에 있어서 집행임원제도의 도입과 그 과제", 상사판례연구, 19(4), pp.89~120 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
  9. "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat 11", ~
  10. Ben White, "What Red Ink? Wall Street Paid Hefty Bonuses", The New York Times (2009)
  11. Bengt Holmstrom, "The State of U.S. Corporate Governance: What’s Right and What’s Wrong?", Journal of Applied Corporate Finanace, 15 (2003)
  12. Charles R.T. O’Kelley, "Cases and Materials, 5th ed" (2006), Thompson, Corporations and Other Business Associations
  13. "Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009, H.R. 3269, 111th Cong", ~ (2009)
  14. "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765", ~
  15. "Say on Pay Votes and CEO Compensation: Evidence from the U.K." (2009)[URL]
  16. "CEO Compensation, Director Compensation, and Firm Performance: Evidence of Cronyism" (2002)[URL]
  17. Lucian Bebchuk, "Pay without Performance; The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive compensation" (2004), Harvard University Press
  18. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17 (2003)
  19. Matthew Ericson, "Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout", The New York Times (2009)
  20. "Press Release, SEC, Former UnitedHealth Group CEO/Chairman Settles Stock Options Backdating Case for $468 Million" (2007)[URL]
  21. "Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance, 31 CFR Part 30, June 15", ~ (2009)
  22. Randall S. Thomas, "The Effect of Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 67 (1999)
  23. "Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745", ~
  24. "Shareholder Bill of Rights Act of 2009, S. 1074, 111th Cong.", ~ (2009)
  25. "Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, S. 1181, 110th Cong.", ~ (2007)
  26. Stephen M. Bainbridge, "Director Primacy and Shareholder Disempowerment", Harvard Law Review, 119 (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)