키코(KIKO) 통화옵션계약 체결 당시 적합성원칙과 설명의무를 위반한 경우 손해배상책임에 관한 판례평석

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한양법학회 2014 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.3

In a case where a bank violated the suitability principle and duty of explanation when it signed a KIKO currency option contract, a question arises to the matter of responsibility to cover damages. After considering various circumstances and in view of equal division of damages, the High Court limited Shinhan Bank"s responsibility to cover damages to thirty percent of the plaintiff company"s loss. The Supreme Court ruled that if negligence is set off for acts of taking possession, such as fraud or embezzlement, the perpetrator keeps the illegal profit in the end, in light of the legal principle which says that comparative negligence is disallowed only in cases where it is against fairness or good faith principles, the plaintiff"s appeal cannot be accepted. In this paper, we examine the validity of setting off the negligence of a corporation while it can question the suitability principle and the violation of duty of explanation. The plaintiff was aware that it is a speculative contract when he signed the KIKO currency option contract, and in a hypothetical scenario, if the exchange rate declined, the plaintiff would have gained an exchange profit or gained profit by exercising his put option. If in this case the bank and the corporation were on equal footing, it would be reasonable to calculate damages to the bank after setting off negligence of the bank. However, because banks have superior professional knowledge and resources than normal investors in dealings of over-the-counter derivatives, it is necessary to protect the normal investor who trusted and did business with the bank. Since the plaintiff violated the suitability principle and duty of explanation in this case, it committed an illegal act that is a willful violation of the suitability principle and duty of explanation. Because the victim suffered a loss due to a willful, illegal act, the perpetrator"s liability for damages was limited to thirty percent, and the bank was awarded seventy percent, the majority of the loss. It is unjust for the perpetrator to be awarded the majority of the loss when the loss was due to an willful, illegal act. Therefore, it is reasonable in this case to conclude that the bank should not be allowed to set off negligence of the corporation.

일반연구논문 ; 이사의 회사에 대한 책임제한에 관한 연구

이훈종 ( Hun Jong Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2014 법과 정책연구 Vol.14 No.3

고의적인 불법행위자에게도 과실상계 또는 책임제한법리를 적용할 수 있느냐는 문제가 있다. 즉 손해배상채권자에게 과실이 있어 그 과실이 손해의 발생이나 확대를 야기한 점을 감안한 과실상계 또는 공평한 손해부담이라는 이념에 비추어 제반사정을 참작하여 손해배상액을 정하는 책임제한이 가능하느냐는 문제가 다양하게 제기되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 범위를 한정하여 주식회사 이사의 회사에 대한 책임제한에 대하여 검토하고자 한다.삼성전자 주식회사의 비상장주식 저가매도사건에서 고등법원과 대법원은 이사들의 행위는 책임이 해제될 수 없는 부정행위에 해당된다고 판결하였다. 이 사건의 경우 삼성전자 주식회사가 비상장주식을 매각하여 반도체 사업에 투자할 자금을 조달할 필요성이 있었으며, 이사들은 당시의 관행에 따라 상속세법 시행 령에 근거하여 비상장주식의 매매가격을 정한 것이다. 법률의 규정에 근거하여 비상장주식의 가격을 평가하는 것이 관행이며, 이사들이 그 관행에 따라 행동한 경우 고의 또는 중과실로 임무를 게을리하여 회사에 손해를 가하였다고 보기는 어렵다. 따라서 이 사건에서 이사들의 행위는 책임이 해제될 수 없는 부정행위가 아니라고 사료된다. 2011년 상법개정 전 대법원 판결 중에는 이사의 행위가 부정행위에 해당되는 경우에도 제반 사정을 참작하여 손해배상책임을 제한할 수 있다는 판결도 있다. 그러나 2011년 개정상법에 따르면 이사에게 고의 또는 중과실이 있는 경우 정관에 규정을 둔다하더라도 이사의 회사에 대한 책임을 감면하는 것이 인정되지 아니한다. 따라서 대법원 판결의 책임제한 법리가 개정상법 시행 후에도 적용될 수 있느냐는 의문이 제기된다. 다양한 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 책임을 제한하는 판례의 법리가 현실적으로 적절한 것인지의 문제가 제기된다. 판결문을 살펴보더라도 다양한 사정을 구체적으로 어떻게 적용하고 있는 지가 불명확하므로, 법률의 구체적인 근거 없이자의적으로 원고의 손해배상청구권을 침해한다는 비판을 받을 우려가 있다. 이사의 고의적인 행위로 인하여 회사에 손해가 초래된 경우 이사의 손해배상책임을 제한하지 아니하는 것이 타당하다. 민법의 손해배상액의 경감청구에 관한 규정에 따르면 손해가 고의 또는 중과실에 의한 것이 아니며, 배상으로 인하여 배상자의 생계에 중대한 영향을 미치게 될 경우 배상액의 경감을 청구할 수 있다(민법 제765조 1항). 이 규정과의 균형적인 해석이라는 측면에서 본다면 이사에게 고의가 있으며, 배상할 자력이 있는 경우 책임제한법리를 적용하는 것은 부당하다. There is a problem with whether we can apply the legal principles of comparative negligence and liability restriction to a person who deliberately committed an illegal act. In other words, when the person who claims for damages is at fault, a questions arises to whether it is possible to apply a liability restriction, which determines the damages by considering comparative negligence in view of the fact that the fault caused the damages to occur or inflate, or by considering the principle of equal split of liability. In this paper, we review the responsibilities of corporation directors who bear the burden of the duty of care and the duty to be faithful. When Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. had sold its unlisted stocks at low prices, the High Court and the Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the directors fell under a illegal act that does not clear their responsibilities. In this case, it was necessary for Samsung Electronics to raise capital to invest in its semiconductor business by selling its unlisted stocks, and the directors followed the practice of those days to determine the sale price of the unlisted stocks based on the enforcement ordinance of the inheritance tax law. When it is customary to estimate the sale price of unlisted stocks according to the rules of the law, and the directors followed the custom, they hardly caused the damage to the corporation by neglecting their duties with willful or gross negligence. Therefore, it is our opinion that the directors did not commit an illegal act that does not clear their responsibility. According to the Supreme Court ruling prior to the 2011 Commercial Law Reform, even in cases where the actions of the director fall under illegal acts, circumstances may be taken into account to restrict liability for damages. However, according to the Commercial Law revised in 2011, when willful or gross negligence is on the part of the director, it is not allowed to reduce the director``s responsibility to the corporation, even when fixed by the articles of association. Thus, a question arises as to whether the legal principle of liability restriction underlying the Supreme Court ruling can be applied after the imposition of the Revised Commercial Law. A question arises to whether the legal principle of the court ruling, which comprehensively takes various circumstances into consideration and limits the responsibility, is realistical in a practical sense. Since careful examination of the ruling does not make it clear how various circumstances are specifically taken into account, it is possible that there could be criticisms that the plaintiff``s right to claim damages can be violated arbitrarily without a specific legal basis. It is highly necessary to devise a plan to prevent such concern. When loss to the corporation is caused by a willful act of the director, it is reasonable to not restrict the director``s liability for damages. According to the stipulations in the Civil Law on reduction of amount of claim for damages, when the loss was not caused by willful or gross negligence, and the compensation has a significant influence on the indemnitor``s livelihood, the amount of damages can be asked to be reduced (Civil Law Article 765 Section 1). In terms of balanced interpretation in accordance with this stipulation, and it is unreasonable to apply principle of liability restriction when the director acted intentionally and had means to compensate for damages.

전환사채의 저가발행과 배임죄에 관한 판례평석

이훈종(Lee, HunJong) 한양법학회 2010 漢陽法學 Vol.29 No.-

Korea's representative conglomerate Samsung Group is regarded with ambivalence. Most college students consider former Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee as a respectable businessman, and Samsung Electronics Corporation, a key company among Samsung Group subsidiaries, often gets a higher credit rating than the nation's credit rating. However, it is criticized for its outdated management and has been faced with lawsuits due to numerous illegal practices. There are various rulings on the succession of Samsung Group's management rights, and the ruling discussed in this paper is also on a case related to the succession of management rights. According to the majority opinion of the Korean Supreme Court unanimous decision on the Everland convertible bond case, because every shareholder was given the opportunity to take over the convertible bonds (hereinafter “CBs”), the CBs were issued legally, although a large quantity of residual CBs were not subscribed. Accordingly, the directors were not guilty of breach of trust, although the CBs were issued to third party at a price lower than the fair price. Since it is reasonable for corporations to differentiate between shareholders who are active investors and third parties, the majority opinion, which states that breach of trust does not apply when CBs are offered to existing shareholders at a discount, is reasonable. According to the majority opinion, if every shareholder is given the opportunity to take over CBs, the issuance of the CBs is legal. In my opinion, the purpose of the majority opinion is to promote stable and uniform legal relations when accepters of CBs are random and unspecified. However, since the accepters of CBs are limited to a son and daughters of the controlling shareholder, it is unnecessary to protect them in order to promote stable legal relations. According to the majority opinion, if the CBs are offered to existing shareholders and there are a large quantity of residual CBs for which the existing shareholders had not subscribed, the board of directors is allowed greatly extensive power, thus the validity of the majority opinion needs to be revisited. Since a profit-seeking corporation needs to raise steady funds as much as possible, when non-subscribed CBs are issued to third party, as opposed to existing shareholders who are active investors, the board of directors should have reviewed whether there exists a business purpose. However, the board of directors did not consider this. In conclusion, the directors in this case violated their fiduciary duty by issuing CBs at a discount to a son and daughters of the controlling shareholder for the purpose of evading high inheritance tax rate. Due to director's negligence, third parties were able to make a profit of the difference between fair price and issue price multiplied by the number of issued stocks, and the company suffered a negative loss of this amount and also a depreciation of its credit rating. Therefore, I conclude that there exists reasonable grounds for the crime of trust breach.

법인격의 남용과 역적용에 관한 판례평석

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한국재산법학회 2011 재산법연구 Vol.28 No.1

평석대상이 되는 사건에서 대법원은 법인격이 형해화된 경우와 법인격이 남용된 경우 회사는 물론 배후자에 대하여도 회사의 행위에 관한 책임을 물을 수 있다고 판결하였다. 배후자가 법인 제도를 남용하였는지 여부는 남용행위 당시 법인격의 형해화의 정도 및 법인격의 형해화에 대한 거래상대방의 인식이나 신뢰 등 제반 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 형해화의 정도 및 거래상대방의 인식이나 신뢰와 관련하여 이 사건을 분석하였다. 또한 평석대상인 대법원 판결에 따르면 소외 2가 이미 설립되어 있던 피고재단에게 채무를 면탈할 목적으로 자신의 재산을 이전하였다는 것 자체가 법인격을 부정할 만한 남용행위라고 단정할 수 없다고 한다. 그러나 대법원은 기존회사가 채무를 면탈하기 위하여 실질적으로 동일한 신설회사를 설립한 경우 회사제도의 남용이므로 법인격을 부인할 수 있다고 판결하였다. 이 두 판결에는 채무를 면탈하기 위하여 법인에게 자산을 이전한 경우 법인격의 부인 여부가 문제된다는 공통점이 있다. 본 논문에서는 이 두 판결의 법리를 비교ㆍ검토하였다. 이 사건에서는 배후자의 개인 채무에 대한 법인의 책임을 추궁하기 위하여 법인격의 남용 여부를 검토하게 되었다. 원심법원은 이 사건에서 법인제도가 남용되었다고 볼 여지가 충분하다고 판단하여 결과적으로 역적용을 인정하였지만, 대법원은 법인제도가 남용되었다고 보기는 어렵다고 판단하여 결과적으로 역적용을 부정하였다. 본 논문에서는 역적용의 실익과 재단법인의 역적용 필요성에 대하여 검토하였다. 재단법인제도는 재산의 집합에 대하여 법인격을 인정하여 재산의 제공자로 부터 독립하여 고유한 목적을 달성할 수 있게 하는 제도이다. 그 목적을 달성하기 위해서는 재단법인의 재산을 보호해야할 필요가 있다. 그러나 형평의 관점에서 볼 때에는 법인제도가 남용하는 경우 법인격을 부인하여 채권자를 보호할 필요가 있다. 이 사건에서는 법인재산 보호의 필요성과 채권자 보호의 필요성이 상충되는 바, 이 두 가지를 비교ㆍ형량하여 법인격의 부인 여부를 정하는 것이 합리적이다. 이 사건에서 피고재단은 무상으로 부동산을 취득하는 이익을 얻었으며, 원고는 부동산이 이전됨으로써 채권을 변제받지 못하는 손해를 당하였다. 피고재단을 지배하고 있는 소외 2는 이전된 부동산 등 자산의 운용과 관련하여 피고재단에 영향력을 행사하는 것이 가능하므로, 자신의 채권자에게 변제하지 아니하고, 피고재단에게 무상으로 부동산을 이전한 것이다. 이 사건에서는 부동산 취득의 대가로 아무 것도 지급하지 않은 피고재단보다는 채권을 변제받지 못하는 손해를 당한 채권자를 보호할 필요성이 크다. 따라서 법인격부인론을 역적용하여 채무의 면탈을 위하여 재산을 이전한 소외 2의 개인적 채무를 피고재단이 부담하도록 하는 것이 합리적이다. In the subject case discussed in this paper, it was ruled that the controller, as well as the corporation, is responsible for the action of the corporation when juristic person is ossified and when it is overused. According to the Supreme Court, whether the controller abused the corporation system must be judged separately after taking all the circumstances into consideration, such as the extent of ossification of juristic person and the awareness or trust of the opposite party, at the time when the act of abuse, such as exemption from liability, was committed. This paper analyzes the relevant case from the viewpoint of the extent of ossification of legal personality and the awareness and trust of the opposite party. Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court decision, the fact that the third party 2 transferred her assets to the already-established accused foundation for the purpose of exemption from liability cannot be considered by itself an act of abuse that denies legal personality. But the Supreme Court ruled that legal personality can be denied because corporation system is abused when a company establishes a practically identical company for the purpose of exemption from liability. These two cases have in common the question of whether or not legal personality was denied when the assets were transferred to the personality for the purpose of exemption from liability. The purpose of an incorporated foundation is to provide an independent legal personality to a collection of assets, which are supplied with a definite goal, and to let it achieve its own goal, independent from the providers of the asset. It is necessary for an incorporated foundation to protect its assets in order to achieve its objective. However, when we consider the principle of equal treatment, it is also necessary to protect the creditors by denying the legal personality when the juristic person system is abused. Since there is a conflict in this case between a need to protect the foundation asset and a need to protect the controller’s creditors, it is reasonable to decide whether to deny legal personality by comparing and weighing these two factors. In this case, the accused foundation acquired real estate without cost and gained a profit, and a plaintiff could not collect his debt after the transfer of the real estate and suffered a loss. Since the third party 2, who controls the accused foundation, was able to exert influence over the accused foundation and manage its assets by transferring the real estate, it did not reimburse the creditors and transferred the real estate to the accused foundation for no cost. When the controller of a non-profit foundation causes a violation of the principle of equal treatment by abusing legal personality, it is unreasonable for the controller to be able to enjoy the profit that resulted from the abuse of legal personality and this must be corrected. In this case, it is more important to protect the creditor who suffered a loss when his debt was not reimbursed, than to protect the accused foundation who paid nothing for the transfer of real estate. Therefore, as applying reversely the principle of denying legal personality, the accused foundation should bear the personal debt of the third party 2, who transferred the assets for the purpose of exemption from liability.

어음행위와 제삼자의 주관적 요건에 관한 연구

이훈종 ( Hun Jong Lee ),송호신 ( Ho Shin Song ) 한국상사판례학회 2004 상사판례연구 Vol.17 No.-

어음의 원인채권의 입법화에 관한 연구

이훈종(Hun-Jong Lee) 한국기업법학회 2013 企業法硏究 Vol.27 No.4

In this paper, we introduce the current law and the Supreme Court ruling regarding the underlying claim of promissory notes, and examine its validity. According to the Supreme Court of Korea, when an underlying debt becomes extinct, the debtor of promissory notes can refuse the payment of the sum on the promissory notes. It is our opinion that when the debtor issued promissory notes for the purpose of payment, he had the intention of bearing the obligations of the promissory notes, and the creditor who was issued the promissory notes can exercise his rights through the promissory notes. If we consider the objective intentions between the persons involved, it is reasonable to apply the Promissory Notes Act, and it is also reasonable to apply the period of prescription on the claim of bill, which is one of the provisions of Promissory Notes Act. Furthermore, even if the underlying claim becomes extinct, the bill creditor possesses the promissory notes, which are an evidence of a just claim. Considering the objective intentions of the persons involved at the time when the promissory notes were issued or endorsed, and in light of the intent of the Promissory Notes Act, it is reasonable for the bill holder to exercise his claim of bill when the underlying claim becomes extinct due to the prescription. According to the Supreme Court, when the extinctive prescription on the rights of the bill is completed, it is possible for the creditor, who did not take measures to stop the extinctive prescription that is necessary to preserve his rights on the bill, can exercise his underlying claim. According to such a ruling by the Supreme Court, a question arises as to whether the debtor who paid off his underlying debt can exercise his underlying claim and be reimbursed against the endorser, who is his former self. If he cannot be reimbursed, it is against fairness because he cannot be reimbursed for his underlying debt although he paid off his underlying claim. If he can get reimbursed, we run the risk of giving rise to a complicated legal relation. In light of fairness and clear solution to the legal matter on promissory notes, it is reasonable to conclude that the creditor cannot exercise his underlying claim. In this paper, we propose a tentative amendment that stipulates the following in the Promissory Notes Act. If the underlying claim is not exercised within three years, the extinctive prescription of the underlying claim against the acceptor comes to completion. The purpose of the tentative amendment is as follows. According to the current law and the Supreme Court ruling, since the period of prescription differs by various types of underlying claim, it is difficult for the creditor of the promissory notes or the debtor to clearly understand his legal rights or duties and take appropriate measures. In order to solve such a difficulty, it is necessary to standardize the exercise period of various underlying claim and fix the period of prescription. According to the Promissory Notes Act, if the right of claim on a promissory note against the acceptor of a bill and the issuer of a promissory note is not exercised within three years from the expiration date, because the extinctive prescription is completed, the prescription period of the underlying claim is too fixed to three years.

보험설계사의 고지수령권과 계약체결권에 관한 연구

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한양법학회 2015 漢陽法學 Vol.26 No.3

According to the Supreme Court, an insurance solicitor does not have the right to act as a proxy for an insurer and enter into a contract, and the solicitor does not even have the right to receive notices, because an insurance solicitor is merely a person who mediates contracts for a particular insurer. When the insurance solicitor receives a notice and does not deliver it to the insurer, or when the solicitor does not explain that insured’s consent is required, the insurance contract becomes void, and the insurance company is liable for damages. However, according to the Supreme Court, when a contract is signed after an insurance agency or an insurance salesman explains in a different matter than the insurance terms, the contract is valid, and the insurance company therefore is responsible for payment in case of an insurance event. In this case, there is no negligence set-off and the policyholder can be heavily protected. However, when the insurance planner does not explain that insured’s consent is required, a negligence set-off occurs, and the policyholder cannot be heavily protected. The question arises as to whether there exists a reasonable cause to set off mistakes when the insurance planner does not explain, but to not set off mistakes when he explains in a different manner. The validity of insurance contract should be determined by applying the legal principle of fair trade protection and considering if the policyholder meets the requirement for protection. However, the protection requirement of the third party and whether the mistakes are set off differ by which specific legal principle of fair trade protection is applied. In this paper, we review the statutes of the insurance section of the Commercial Law and examine which requirements should be applied. The regulations in the insurance section of the Commercial Law on claim for insurance premium refund due to a void contract (Commercial Law Article 648), on contract termination due to breach of duty of disclosure (Commercial Law Article 651), and on cause of exemption for insurer (Commercial Law Article 659) stipulate that the policyholder “be in good faith and have no gross negligence” as a requirement for protection, and that “willful or gross negligence of the policyholder” is a cause of exemption for the insurer. Since the prohibition of reformatio in peius applies in such regulations of the insurance section (Commercial Law Article 663), the contents of insurance policies cannot be in principle more disadvantageous to the insurer than the protection requirement of the policyholder or the cause of exemption. Thus, the policyholder should be protected when there is no gross negligence.

한자사랑방 40 : 한여름의 파접놀이

이훈종 ( Lee Hun Jong ) 전국한자교육추진총연합회 2003 한글한자문화 Vol.50 No.-

영업소로서의 실질을 구비하지 아니한 경우 표현지배인의 행위에 대한 영업주의 책임

이훈종(Hun-Jong Lee),박철호(Chul-Ho Park) 한양법학회 2006 漢陽法學 Vol.19 No.-

가속기 구조에서의 그래프 신경망 성능 특성 분석

이훈종(Hunjong Lee),구건재(Gunjae Koo) 한국정보과학회 2022 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.2022 No.06