본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

상호주(상법 제369조 제3항)의 판단시점과 판단기준 - 대법원 2009.1.30. 선고 2006다31269 판결을 중심으로 -

Timing and Requirement for deciding cross-owned shares(Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law) - with a special emphasis on the Supreme Court Decision: Jan. 30, 2009 2006 da 31269 -

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law provides that in case company, parent company and subsidiary company or subsidiary company owns the shares of the other companies over one tenth of the total issuing shares, shares of company or parent company which the other company owns have no voting rights. This provision aims to eliminate the possibility that officers of both company influence the resolution of the shareholder meeting without owning shares. Supreme Court Decision Jan. 30, 2009 2006 da 31269 makes the timing and requirements for deciding cross-owned shares(Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law) clear for the first time. The Supreme Court decided that ①timing for determining whether cross-owned shares have voting rights or not is the date of shareholder meeting, and ②requirements for determining whether cross-owned shares have voting rights or not is the real ownership of the shares, not the transfer of names in the lists of shareholders. This article examines this case by reviewing the scholar's opinions and the Japanese Law which was the model of Korean Commercial Law. Especially this article focuses on the meaning and intension of Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law. This article consists of four Parts. PartⅠ. suggests the legal issues and the importance of this Case. Part Ⅱ. describes the general description of the Case. Part Ⅲ. analyses the scholar's opinions and the Art. 308(1) of Japanese Company Law comprehensively. Part Ⅳ. analyses the Case Law and suggests the writer's opinion. In conclusion, the writer's opinion is for the Supreme Court's decision.

Abstract

Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law provides that in case company, parent company and subsidiary company or subsidiary company owns the shares of the other companies over one tenth of the total issuing shares, shares of company or parent company which the other company owns have no voting rights. This provision aims to eliminate the possibility that officers of both company influence the resolution of the shareholder meeting without owning shares. Supreme Court Decision Jan. 30, 2009 2006 da 31269 makes the timing and requirements for deciding cross-owned shares(Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law) clear for the first time. The Supreme Court decided that ①timing for determining whether cross-owned shares have voting rights or not is the date of shareholder meeting, and ②requirements for determining whether cross-owned shares have voting rights or not is the real ownership of the shares, not the transfer of names in the lists of shareholders. This article examines this case by reviewing the scholar's opinions and the Japanese Law which was the model of Korean Commercial Law. Especially this article focuses on the meaning and intension of Art. 369(3) of Korean Commercial Law. This article consists of four Parts. PartⅠ. suggests the legal issues and the importance of this Case. Part Ⅱ. describes the general description of the Case. Part Ⅲ. analyses the scholar's opinions and the Art. 308(1) of Japanese Company Law comprehensively. Part Ⅳ. analyses the Case Law and suggests the writer's opinion. In conclusion, the writer's opinion is for the Supreme Court's decision.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. 손주찬, "개정상법축조해설", 한국사법행정학회, ~ (1984)
  2. 이철송, "회사법강의 제18판" (2010), 박영사
  3. 정찬형, "상법강의(상) 제13판" (2010), 박영사
  4. 최기원, "신회사법론 제13대정판" (2009), 박영사
  5. 한창희, "회사법" (2001), 청목출판사
  6. 김지평, "주권발행 전 주식양도와 상호주 보유 규제 - 대법원 2009.1.30. 선고 2006다31269 판결", 인권과 정의, (400), pp.74~96 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  7. 김택주, "2009 회사법 판례상의 주요쟁점", 상사판례연구, 23(2), pp.401~473 (2010), 한국상사판례학회
  8. 김홍기, "상호주판단의 기준시점 및 기준일제도와의 상호연관성 -대상판결 : 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2006다31269 판결", 동북아법연구, 3(2), pp.481~508 (2009), 동북아법연구소
  9. 박찬우, "주식의 상호보유에 관한 상법의 규제", 연세법학연구, 2 (1992)
  10. 유영일, "상법 제342조의 3 소정의 주식취득 통지의무의 적용범위", 상사판례연구, 12 (2001)
  11. 이병규, "株主議決權制限의 違憲性 硏究", 성균관법학, 21(3), pp.567~596 (2009), 법학연구소
  12. 임재연, "2009년 회사법 중요 판례", 인권과 정의, (403), pp.87~97 (2010), 대한변호사협회
  13. 채동헌, "상호주 보유와 의결권 행사에 있어 명의개서의 필요여부", 상장 (2009)
  14. 江頭憲治郞, "株式會社法(제3판)" (2009), 有斐閣
  15. 上柳克郞 外, "新版註釋會社法(5)" (1986), 有斐閣
  16. 이철송, "會社法講義 (制18版)" (2010), 박영사
  17. 得津 晶, "持合株式의の法的地位-株主たる地位と他の法的地位の竝存(一)", 法學協會雜誌, 125(3) (2009)
  18. 田中 亘, "基準日制度の意義と問題點 in:「會社法の爭點」(Jurist 增刊)" (2009), 有斐閣

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)