집행임원에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용 가능성: 미국의 이론 및 사례 연구
The Application of the Business Judgment Rule to Executive Officers: The Theory and Practice in the U.S.
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The executive officers mean, in the case of a corporation, the top of officers of a corporation. In 2011, the Korean Commercial Code adopted the new regime for the executive officers, and, as the duty currently stands, they owe some duties(including fiduciary duties) analogous to those owed by directors, to the company they are employed by and the shareholders they serve. In the U.S., the Delaware Supreme Court, renowned for its corporate governance decisions, recently decided Gantler v. Stephens and held that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors. Before Gantler, two competing views emerged with respect to the protections courts should extend to executive officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. One argued that executive officers and directors were equal fiduciaries and, therefore, courts should afford them the same business judgment presumption. Another contended that executive officers had greater responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the companies and, thus, should not be given the deferential treatment of the business judgment presumption. Gantler is important because it expressly held that executive officers are fiduciaries, however, the opinion left some very important questions undecided. One of those questions is whether the business judgment rule applies to executive officers. This article studies on the theory and practice of the business judgment rule under Delaware law in order to have a clearer understanding of whether Korea needs the rule to protect executive officers under the Korean Commercial Code.
Abstract
The executive officers mean, in the case of a corporation, the top of officers of a corporation. In 2011, the Korean Commercial Code adopted the new regime for the executive officers, and, as the duty currently stands, they owe some duties(including fiduciary duties) analogous to those owed by directors, to the company they are employed by and the shareholders they serve. In the U.S., the Delaware Supreme Court, renowned for its corporate governance decisions, recently decided Gantler v. Stephens and held that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors. Before Gantler, two competing views emerged with respect to the protections courts should extend to executive officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. One argued that executive officers and directors were equal fiduciaries and, therefore, courts should afford them the same business judgment presumption. Another contended that executive officers had greater responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the companies and, thus, should not be given the deferential treatment of the business judgment presumption. Gantler is important because it expressly held that executive officers are fiduciaries, however, the opinion left some very important questions undecided. One of those questions is whether the business judgment rule applies to executive officers. This article studies on the theory and practice of the business judgment rule under Delaware law in order to have a clearer understanding of whether Korea needs the rule to protect executive officers under the Korean Commercial Code.
참고문헌 (24)
- 이철송, "회사법강의(제20판)" (2012), 박영사
- 정동윤, "회사법" (2000), 법문사
- 최기원, "신회사법론" (1999), 박영사
- 권재열, "경영판단원칙의 도입여부에 관한 비판적 검토", 비교사법, 6(1) (1999), 한국비교사법학회
- 김대연, "주주대표소송과 경영판단원칙", 상사법연구, 17(3) (1999), 한국상사법학회
- 김병기, "執行任員의 責任에 관한 硏究", 법학연구, (33), pp.267~288 (2009), 한국법학회
- 김재범, "대출결정시 금융기관 이사의 주의의무와 경영판단의 원칙 -대상판결 : 대법원 2006.11.9. 선고 2004다41651, 41668 판결-", 상사판례연구, 21(1), pp.3~35 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 김태진, "개정 상법하의 집행임원제 운용을 위한 법적 검토", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.295~384 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 손영화, "미국법상 경영판단원칙과 그 도입 여부에 관한 일고찰", 상사법연구, 18(2) (1999), 한국상사법학회
- 송양호, "집행임원의 책임완화에 대한 고찰", 법학연구, 통권 : 29 (2009), 전북대학교 법학연구소
- 윤성승, "집행임원의 법적지위 및 책임의 비판적 고찰", 기업법연구, 20(4), pp.37~70 (2006), 한국기업법학회
- 정준우, "2011년 개정상법상 집행임원의 법적 지위에 관한 비판적 검토", 한양법학, (35), pp.449~482 (2011), 한양법학회
- 문정해, "미국의 최근 판결동향에 따른 경영판단원칙의 수용가능성 검토 : 경영판단원칙의 개념에 관한 사법심사의 접근방식을 중심으로", 상사법연구, 27(4), pp.161~199 (2009), 한국상사법학회
- 문정해, "신인의무 면제 가능성에 따른 신의성실의 원칙의 적용에 대한 소고: LLC 및 LP 구성원의 신인의무 면제 가능성에 대한 델라웨어 주의 입법 및 판례 동향을 중심으로", 서울법학, 19(2), pp.243~278 (2011), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소
- 문정해, "미국 델라웨어 주 판례법상 이사와 집행임원의 고지의무에 대한 소고", 상사판례연구, 25(3), pp.317~347 (2012), 한국상사판례학회
- A.L.I., "Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations" (2008)
- Bainbridge, Stephen M., "The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine", Vand. L. Rev, 57, pp.83~ (2004)
- Chittur, Krishnan, "The Corporate Director’s Standard of Care: Past, Present, and Future", Del. J. Corp. L, 10, pp.505~ (1985)
- Dooley, Michael, "The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared", Bus. Law, 44, pp.503~ (1989)
- Fischel, Daniel R., "The Business Judgment Rule and the Trans Union Case", Bus. Law, 40, pp.1437~ (1985)
- Hamermesh, Lawrence A., "Corporate Officers and the Business Judgment Rule: A Reply to Professor Johnson", Bus. Law, 60, pp.865~ (2005)
- Johnson, Lyman P.Q., "Corporate Officers and the Business Judgment Rule", Bus. Law, 60, pp.439~ (2005)
- Posner, Eric A., "A Theory of Contract Law under Conditions of Radical Judical Error", Nw. U. L. Rev, 94, pp.749~ (2000)
- Rock, Edward B., "Dangerous Liaisons: Corporate Law, Trust Law, and Interdoctrinal Legal Transplants", Nw. U. L. Rev, 96, pp.651~ (2002)