본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

법인격 부인론의 합리적 재구성

A Reasonable Reconstruction of the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

In a few very extreme cases, courts may "pierce the corporate veil," and hold some or all of the shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s debts. This is the so-called doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. This doctrine was first developed at the end of 19th century in America. Under the American corporate law, if the corporation’s shares are held by individuals, courts look in deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil to such factors as, for example, tort vs. contract, fraud, inadequate capitalization and failure of formalities. In nearly all cases, at least two of the above four factors must be present for the court to pierce the veil; the most common combination is probably inadequate capitalization plus failure to follow corporate formalities. In Japan, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was first adopted in 1969 by a Supreme Court decision, which categorized the piercing the corporate veil cases into two groups; one is abuse of corporate legal entity case and the other one is skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case. Thereafter all the Japanese courts are following the Supreme Courts' lead and categorize the piercing the corporate veil case as above. However, this kind of categorization has been strongly criticized by many Japanese scholars because the factors to be considered in determining which cases belong to the abuse of corporate legal entity case and which cases belong to the skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case are too vague. Such categorization is the only creature of Japanese courts and American courts never know such a dichotomy. Even though the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applied by the Japanese Courts has many problems as mentioned above, Korean courts and scholars followed the Japanese Courts's attitude without much thought. The object of this article is to study the American doctrine of piercing the corporate veil which is the model of korean and japanese doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, and to reasonably reconstruct the system of Korean doctrine of the corporate veil.

Abstract

In a few very extreme cases, courts may "pierce the corporate veil," and hold some or all of the shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s debts. This is the so-called doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. This doctrine was first developed at the end of 19th century in America. Under the American corporate law, if the corporation’s shares are held by individuals, courts look in deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil to such factors as, for example, tort vs. contract, fraud, inadequate capitalization and failure of formalities. In nearly all cases, at least two of the above four factors must be present for the court to pierce the veil; the most common combination is probably inadequate capitalization plus failure to follow corporate formalities. In Japan, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was first adopted in 1969 by a Supreme Court decision, which categorized the piercing the corporate veil cases into two groups; one is abuse of corporate legal entity case and the other one is skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case. Thereafter all the Japanese courts are following the Supreme Courts' lead and categorize the piercing the corporate veil case as above. However, this kind of categorization has been strongly criticized by many Japanese scholars because the factors to be considered in determining which cases belong to the abuse of corporate legal entity case and which cases belong to the skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case are too vague. Such categorization is the only creature of Japanese courts and American courts never know such a dichotomy. Even though the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applied by the Japanese Courts has many problems as mentioned above, Korean courts and scholars followed the Japanese Courts's attitude without much thought. The object of this article is to study the American doctrine of piercing the corporate veil which is the model of korean and japanese doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, and to reasonably reconstruct the system of Korean doctrine of the corporate veil.

참고문헌 (16)

  1. 최병규, "회사법" (2011), 박영사
  2. 이철송, "「회사법 강의」제17판" (2009), 박영사
  3. 서헌제, "「상법강의(상)」제2판" (2007), 법문사
  4. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제12판)" (2009), 박영사
  5. 박세화, "미국의 회사 법인격 부인론", 연세법학연구, 8 (1998)
  6. Jesse H. Choper, "Corporation, In Gilbert Law Summaries, 15th ed" (2005), Thomson
  7. James D. Cox, "Treatise on the Law of Corporations, 3rd ed. v.1" (2010), West
  8. Steven L. Emanuel, "Emanuel Law Outline, In 「Corporation」, 3rd ed." (1997)
  9. Robert W. Hamilton, "The Law of Corporations in a Nutshell, 4th ed." (1996)
  10. Frederick J. Powell, "Parent and Subsidiary Corporations: Liability of a Parent Corporation for the Obligations of Its Subsidiary" (1931)
  11. Thomas K. Cheng, "The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study Of The English And The U.S. Corporate Veil Doctrines", B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev, 34, pp.329~ (2011)
  12. Robert B. Thompson, "Piercing The Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study", Cornell L. Rev, 76, pp.1036~ (1991)
  13. 江頭憲治郎, "会社法人格否認の法理" (1980), 東京大学出版会
  14. 江頭憲治郎, "柱式会社法 第3版" (2009), 有斐閣
  15. 井上和彦, "法人格否認の法理" (1985), 千倉書房
  16. 後藤元, "法人格否認の法理, In 会社法の争点〔ジュリスト増刊 新法律学の争点シリーズ5〕" (2009), 有斐閣

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)