독일 조직재편법상 회사분할제도 ─ 이해관계자 보호를 중심으로 ─
Legal Issues on Corporate Division in Germany
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Under the premise that economy should attract foreign capitals and thereby be stimulated, it would unavoidably mandate the protection of minority shareholders and creditor in corporate division under the Commercial Act. That is, it is necessary to restrict controlling shareholders who are found to have abused corporate profits in corporate governance. However, the regulation for protection of employee is quite difficult to mandate specifically between corporate law and labor law. In this article, it seeks to compare on the protection of employee in corporate division of Germany and Japan. It reflects a general reluctance to compare shareholder capitalism theory and stakeholder capitalism theory as long as they are not directly involved in corporate profits among civil law countries. It is considerably difficult to apply the protection of shareholders or stakeholders because it depends on the situation where it is, so that it is unclear and ambiguous to regulate in the corporate law. In this respect, it is necessary to expand a range of regulations for protection of employee in corporate division and to examine various prominent legal theory and precedents in civil law countries. Throughout systematic approaches and thorough discussions, it seeks to explore the patterns of homogeneity and heterogeneity that appear. There are many controversies of their effectiveness by expanding the range of regulations for protection of employee and introducing the co-determination regime in corporate division, so that it has a thorough grasp of substantial continuous and systematic measures of regulations for shareholders and stakeholders in Korea. Therefore, it is necessary to set out a conceptual framework and a factual basis with the important issues of protection of employee regulations facing the Commercial Act can be fruitfully explored in Korea.
Abstract
Under the premise that economy should attract foreign capitals and thereby be stimulated, it would unavoidably mandate the protection of minority shareholders and creditor in corporate division under the Commercial Act. That is, it is necessary to restrict controlling shareholders who are found to have abused corporate profits in corporate governance. However, the regulation for protection of employee is quite difficult to mandate specifically between corporate law and labor law. In this article, it seeks to compare on the protection of employee in corporate division of Germany and Japan. It reflects a general reluctance to compare shareholder capitalism theory and stakeholder capitalism theory as long as they are not directly involved in corporate profits among civil law countries. It is considerably difficult to apply the protection of shareholders or stakeholders because it depends on the situation where it is, so that it is unclear and ambiguous to regulate in the corporate law. In this respect, it is necessary to expand a range of regulations for protection of employee in corporate division and to examine various prominent legal theory and precedents in civil law countries. Throughout systematic approaches and thorough discussions, it seeks to explore the patterns of homogeneity and heterogeneity that appear. There are many controversies of their effectiveness by expanding the range of regulations for protection of employee and introducing the co-determination regime in corporate division, so that it has a thorough grasp of substantial continuous and systematic measures of regulations for shareholders and stakeholders in Korea. Therefore, it is necessary to set out a conceptual framework and a factual basis with the important issues of protection of employee regulations facing the Commercial Act can be fruitfully explored in Korea.
참고문헌 (31)
- 권기범, "기업구조조정법", pp.43~44 (2011), 삼영사
- 권재열, "회사분할시 근로관계의 승계에 대하여 근로자가 거부권을 행사할 수 있는가? － 대법원 2013.12.12. 선고 2011두4282판결을 대상으로 하여 －", 증권법연구, 15(1), pp.45~77 (2014), 한국증권법학회[DOI]
- 노혁준, "회사분할의 제문제" (2014), 소화
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2017), 박영사
- 최석환, "회사 분할에 따른 근로관계의 승계에 관한 법리", 노동법연구, (36), pp.207~242 (2014), 서울대학교노동법연구회
- 최준선, "회사법 제9판" (2014), 삼영사
- Bälz, "Die Spaltung im japanischen Gesellschaftsrecht" (2005)
- Bruno Kropff, "Über die Ausgliederung, Festschrift für Ernst Gessler", ~ (1971)
- Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, "Rechtspolitische Konsequenzen aus der geplanten Abschaffung von §419 BGB für §25 HGB", ZIP (1989)
- Detlef Kleindiek, "Vertragsfreiheit und Gläubigerschutz im künftigen Spaltungsrecht nach dem Referentenentwurf UmwG", ZGR (1992)
- Georg Maier-Reimer, "Umwandlungsgesetz" (2012)
- Hirte, "Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht" (2016)
- Jens Kollmar, "Die Ausstrahlungen des Umwandlungsgesetzes auf Spaltungen nach traditionellem Recht" (1999)
- Joost, "Umwandlungsgesetz, Kommentar, Band 2" (2009)
- Kai Mertens, "Umwandlung und Universalsukuzession" (1993)
- Karsten Schmidt, "Gesetzliche Gestaltung und dogmatisches Konzept eines neuen Umwandlungsgesetzes-Überlegungen zur legislatorischen Praxis und Theorie-", ZGR (1990)
- Marcus Lutter, "Europäisches Unternehmens und Kapitalmarktrecht" (2012)
- Mathias Habersack, "Festschrift für Gerold Bezzenberger" (2000)
- Nishitani, "Vergleichende Einführung in das japanische Arbeitsrecht" (2003)
- Peter Hommelhoff, "Kölner Umwandlungsrechtstage: Verschmelzung, Spaltung, Formwechsel: nach neuem Umwandlungsrecht und Umwandlungssteuerrecht" (1995)
- Rüdiger Veil, "Aktienrecht im Wandel, Band H. Grundsatzfragen des Aktienrechts" (2007)
- Thomas Theißen, "Gläubigerschutz bei der Spaltung von Gesellschaften nach dem Umwandlungsgesetz" (2001)
- Weidenkaff, "Palandt, BGB" (2014)
- Willemens, "Umwandlungsgesetz, Kommentar" (2010)
- Windbichler, "Gesellschaftsrecht" (2013)
- 小川浩三, "ドイツ株式法" (2011), 信山社
- 神田秀樹, "会社法" (2015), 弘文堂
- 高橋英治, "会社法の繼受と收斂" (2016), 有斐閣
- 高橋英治, "日本における敵対的企業買収と法の発展—資本市場·企業組織·法意識", 法学雑誌, 55(3·4) (2009)
- 阪急交通社事件, 中小科研研究会報告書, "地神亮佑", ~ (2015)
- 西谷敏, "労働法" (2013), 日本評論社