전환사채의 저가발행과 배임죄
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.
참고문헌 (43)
- 곽노현, "배임특권의 법과 정치", 민주법학, (35)통권 : 35, pp.309~338 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 구 회 근, "업무상 배임죄와 경영판단원칙 - 대법원판례를 중심으로 -", 법조, 54(11), pp.55~105 (2005), 법조협회
- 김기섭, "법인대표의 경영상의 판단과 업무상배임죄", 판례연구, 18(2) (2004)
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), 성균관대학교출판부
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2000), 동현출판사
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
- 박미숙, "경영판단과 배임죄의 성부", 형사판례연구, 15 (2007)
- 박상기, "형법각론" (2008), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2007), 홍문사
- 백형구, "형법각론" (2002), 청림출판
- 송옥렬, "기업경영권 승계의 사회적 효율성", BFL, (19) (2006)
- 송옥렬, "이사의 민사책임과 형사책임의 판단기준" (2006), 박영사
- 송옥렬, "株主의 富와 會社의 損害에 관한 判例의 再檢討연구논문", 사법, 1(2), pp.43~74 (2007), 사법발전재단
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2003), 대명출판사
- 이경렬, "경영판단의 과오와 업무상배임죄의 성부", 법조, 55(12), pp.122~159 (2006), 법조협회
- 이규훈, "업무상 배임죄와 경영판단", 형사판례연구, 13 (2005)
- 이동승, "재벌의 경영권세습에 관한 회사법적 연구", 기업법연구, 19(4), pp.107~134 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 이상돈, "경영실패와 경영진의 형사책임", 법조, 통권 : 560 (2003)
- 이영봉, "경영판단의 법칙의 수용에 관한 검토", 상사법연구, 19(1) (2000)
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2004), 박영사
- 이정민, "경영판단원칙과 업무상 배임죄", 형사정책연구, 18(4), pp.159~188 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이정원, "형법각론" (1999), 법지사
- 이종상, "이사의 책임과 배임죄에 대한 비판적 고찰", BFL, (19) (2006)
- 이철송, "資本去來와 任員의 刑事責任", 인권과 정의, (359), pp.96~116 (2006), 대한변호사협회
- 이철송, "「資本去來와 任員의 刑事責任」의 再論", 법조, 55(12), pp.160~190 (2006), 법조협회
- 이철송, "전환사채의 발행에 따르는 몇 가지 문제점", 사법행정, 31(1) (1988)
- 이형국, "형법강의" (2007), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법각론" (2007), 법문사
- 장덕조, "에버랜드판결의 분석", 민주법학, (34), pp.391~419 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 장덕조, "轉換社債의 低價發行과 會社의 損害, 그리고 株主의 損害", 법조, 58(5), pp.79~122 (2009), 법조협회
- 장덕조, "전환사채의 저가발행과 회사의 손해", 법조, 55(10), pp.54~95 (2006), 법조협회
- 정동윤, "회사법" (2005), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2008), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법개론" (2009), 박영사
- 정웅석, "형법강의" (2006), 대명출판사
- 정찬형, "전환사채의 발행과 관련한 몇 가지 문제점", 고려법학, (43) (2004)
- 조승현, "전환사채의 불공정한 저가 발행의 법적 문제점", 민주법학, (35), pp.275~308 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 진계호, "형법각론" (2008), 문왕사
- 천종철, "배임죄에 있어서의 임무위배행위", 연세법학연구 (1995)
- 최기원, "신회사법론" (2005), 박영사
- 최문희, "경영자의 배임죄와 회사법상 이사의 의무", 저스티스, 통권 : 112 (2009)
- , 2006
- 허일태, "배임죄에서의 행위주체와 손해의 개념", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.137~158 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회