의결권 신탁과 의결권행사 계약의 비교법적 고찰
Comparative Study on Voting Trust and Voting Agreement
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Voting trust and voting agreement are used to pool the voting rights and to exercise concerted voting rights as agreed among the shareholders. In the U.S. almost all the states adopted voting trust and voting agreement in the corporation statutes. Current U.S. law on the voting trust and voting agreement is based on the corporation statutes as well as case law. The main characteristics of the both voting arrangements are that such arrangements are disclosed to the company either by recording them in shareholders' record and certificate of shares or by submitting the agreements between the shareholders to the company and the parties can enforce the agreement by the specific performance order of the courts. Many commentators of Korea said that the U.S. voting trust and voting agreement could be also used in Korea. Regarding the voting trust, they explain that it can be used under the trust law as long as the legal effects are confined to the parties and the companies are not obligated under the trust arrangement. However, the opposing opinion says that since there is no provisions regarding voting trust and it is not clear whether the voting rights can be trusted under the trust law, voting trust can not be used in Korea. Regarding the voting agreement, most commentators explain that it can be used in Korea if it does not violate the public policy and law and that the legal effects only obligates between the parties of the agreements and the remedy for the breach of the contract is damages. The main difference of understanding on voting trust and voting agreement between U.S. and Korea is whether they can be enforced to the company. The shareholders of the agreements can enforce the contracts as they agreed and their remedies are not limited to the damages. Damages are not proper solution when voting agreements are violated. Since without clear provisions as in the U.S. it is impossible to achieve the purpose of voting trust and voting agreement as they intend, I recommend that voting trust and voting agreement need to be adopted in Korean corporation code in the future by amendment of corporation code.
Abstract
Voting trust and voting agreement are used to pool the voting rights and to exercise concerted voting rights as agreed among the shareholders. In the U.S. almost all the states adopted voting trust and voting agreement in the corporation statutes. Current U.S. law on the voting trust and voting agreement is based on the corporation statutes as well as case law. The main characteristics of the both voting arrangements are that such arrangements are disclosed to the company either by recording them in shareholders' record and certificate of shares or by submitting the agreements between the shareholders to the company and the parties can enforce the agreement by the specific performance order of the courts. Many commentators of Korea said that the U.S. voting trust and voting agreement could be also used in Korea. Regarding the voting trust, they explain that it can be used under the trust law as long as the legal effects are confined to the parties and the companies are not obligated under the trust arrangement. However, the opposing opinion says that since there is no provisions regarding voting trust and it is not clear whether the voting rights can be trusted under the trust law, voting trust can not be used in Korea. Regarding the voting agreement, most commentators explain that it can be used in Korea if it does not violate the public policy and law and that the legal effects only obligates between the parties of the agreements and the remedy for the breach of the contract is damages. The main difference of understanding on voting trust and voting agreement between U.S. and Korea is whether they can be enforced to the company. The shareholders of the agreements can enforce the contracts as they agreed and their remedies are not limited to the damages. Damages are not proper solution when voting agreements are violated. Since without clear provisions as in the U.S. it is impossible to achieve the purpose of voting trust and voting agreement as they intend, I recommend that voting trust and voting agreement need to be adopted in Korean corporation code in the future by amendment of corporation code.
참고문헌 (41)
- 최기원, "상법학신론(상)" (2009), 박영사
- 최병규, "회사법" (2009), 박영사
- 안택식, "회사법강의" (2009), 형설출판사
- 임재연, "미국기업법" (2009), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제12판)" (2009), 박영사
- 채동헌, "주식회사와 법" (2004), 청림출판
- 곽관훈, "벤처기업에 있어서의 株主間 契約", 상사법연구, 22(1), pp.329~357 (2003), 한국상사법학회
- 권오성, "의결권구속계약에 관한 소고", 변호사, 38 (2008), 서울지 방변호사회
- 김병곤, "한국기업의 지배구조 특성분석 및 개선방안에 관한 연구", 金融工學硏究, 5(1), pp.179~203 (2006), 한국금융공학회
- 박상근, "주주권의 포기와 의결권의 대리행사 in:상사판례연구 제Ⅶ권" (2007), 박영사
- 윤호일, "위임장권유 및 의결권신탁제도", 상사법연구, 8 (1990), 한국상사법학회
- Robert W. Hamilton, "The Law of Corporations(5th ed. )" (2000), West Group
- Robert C. Clark, "Corporate Law", Little, Brown and Company, ~ (1986)
- "18A Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 944, § 946, § 985 (2011)", ~ (2011)
- "5 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 2075, § 2080.10, § 2081 (2011)", ~ (2011)
- Melvin Aron Eisenberg, "Corporations and Other Business Organizations, Statutes, Rules, Materials, and Forms" (2004), Foundation Press
- Brenda G. Houck, "1994 Statutory Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation", Del. J. Corp. L, 20, pp.477~ (1995)
- C. Stephen Bigler, "Delaware Update", Bus. L. Today, 4, pp.24~ (1995)
- William S. Hochstetler, "Statutory Needs of Close Corporations—An Empirical Study: Special Close Corporation Legislation or Flexible General Corporation Law?", J. Corp. L, 10, pp.849~ (1985)
- Seth Chertok, "For Privately Held Companies, Missouri Corporate Law May Prove More Favorable than Delaware Law", J. Mo. B, 63, pp.116~119 (2007)
- Michael Lee, "Empty Voting: Private Solutions to a Private Problem", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 2007, pp.883~ (2007)
- Joseph Jude Norton, "Adjustment and Protection of Shareholder Interests in the Closely-Held Corporation in Texas", Sw. L.J, 39, pp.781~814 (1985)
- Comment, "Voting Agreement or Voting Trust? A Quandary for Corporate Shareholders", Stan. L. Rev, 10, pp.565~ (1958)
- Henry W. Ballantine, "Voting Trusts, Their Abuses and Regulation", Tex. L. Rev, 21, pp.139~ (1942)
- "Ringling Bro. Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows v. Ringling, 53 A.2d 441 (Del. 1947)", ~ (1947)
- "Trefethen v. Amazeen, 36 A.2d 266 (N.H. 1944)", ~ (1944)
- "Ramos v. Estrada, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 (Cal. App. 1992)", ~ (1992)
- "Bator v. United Sausage Co., 81 A.2d 442 (Conn. 1951)", ~ (1951)
- "Dougherty v. Cross, 151 P.2d 654 (Cal. App. 1944)", ~ (1944)
- "Barney v. First Nat. Bank of Monterey, 90 P.2d 584 (Cal. App. 1939)", ~ (1939)
- "Watts v. Des Moines Register & Tribune, 525 F.Supp. 1311 (S.D. Iowa 1981)", ~ (1981)
- "Frost v. Carse, 108 A 642 (N.J. 1919)", ~ (1919)
- "Adams v. Clearance Corp., 116 A2d 893(Del. Ch. 1955)", ~ (1955)
- "Kann v. Rossett, 30 N.E.2d 204 (Ill. App. 1940)", ~ (1940)
- "Thompson v. Enstar Corp., 509 A2d 578 (Del. Ch. 1984)", ~ (1984)
- "Abercrombie v. Davies, 130 A.2d 338(Del. Ch. 1957)", ~ (1957)
- "Lehrman v. Cohen, 222 A.2d 800, 805 (Del. Ch. 1966)", ~ (1966)
- "Tankersley v. Albright, 374 F.Supp. 538 (N.D.Ill.1974)", ~ (1974)
- "Brown v. McLanahan, 148 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1945)", ~ (1945)
- "Oceanic Exploration Co. v. Grynberg, 428 A2d 1 (Del. 1981)", ~ (1981)
- "Martin v. Graybar Elec. Co., 285 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1961)", ~ (1961)