건재 정인승박사 고희 기념호 : 새로 밝혀진 실화고대소설: 박효낭전경위(朴孝娘傳經緯)

이훈종 ( Hun Jong Lee ) 겨레어문학회 1969 겨레어문학 Vol.5 No.-

민사시효와 상사시효 구별의 타당성에 관한 연구

이훈종(Hun-Jong Lee) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2020 江原法學 Vol.59 No.-

대법원은 민사시효와 상사시효를 구별하는 기준으로서 문제된 행위가 상행위에 해당하느냐와 문제된 행위를 신속하게 해결할 필요가 있느냐를 들고 있다. 대법원은 상행위와 상행위가 아닌 행위를 구별하여 소멸시효를 다르게 적용하고 있는 바, 법리적으로 복잡하고, 현실적으로 상행위인가를 구별하기 어려운 경우가 있다. 자연인인 상인이 자금을 차용하는 경우와 개업을 하기 전 자연인의 자금을 차용하는 경우 일률적으로 민사시효 또는 상사시효가 적용되는 것이 아니라, 구체적 사정에 따라 민사시효 또는 상사시효가 적용되므로 법리적으로 복잡하다고 할 수 있다. 실제 사건에서 자연인인 상인의 투자행위가 영업으로서 또는 영업을 위하여 하는 행위인지 이와는 무관한 행위인지를 구별하기 쉽지 아니한 경우를 볼 수 있다. 마찬가지로 대표이사의 행위가 회사의 행위에 해당되느냐 대표이사 개인의 행위에 해당되느냐를 구별하는 것도 현실적으로 쉽지 아니한 경우가 있다. 보조적 상행위는 항상 다수인을 상대로 계속적으로 이루어진다고 할 수 없으므로, 상사소멸시효의 취지를 상거래의 요청인 신속성의 원칙에 따라 상거래관계를 신속하게 종결하기 위한 것으로 본다면, 보조적 상행위에 대하여는 상사소멸시효를 적용할 필요가 없다. 대법원은 부당이득반환청구권의 소멸시효에 대하여 신속하게 해결할 필요 여부를 기준으로 소멸시효를 다르게 적용하고 있지만, 이 기준이 타당하냐는 문제가 있다. 대법원은 자동차손해배상보장사업을 위탁받은 보험사업자가 부당이득반환청구권을 행사하는 경우 이 사업은 피해자에 대한 신속한 보상을 주목적으로 하는 것은 아니므로, 민사시효가 적용된다고 판결하였지만, 자동차손해배상보장법의 취지를 신속하고 효율적으로 피해자를 보호하려는 것으로 볼 필요가 있다. 이러한 시각에서 본다면 민사시효가 적용된다는 대법원판결의 법리에 대하여 재검토할 필요가 있다. 보증보험계약에 근거한 부당이득반환청구권에 관한 사건에서 대법원은 채권 발생의 경위나 원인, 원고와 피고의 지위와 관계 등에 비추어 신속하게 해결할 필요성 여부를 판단하였다. 그러나 분양계약에 근거한 부당이득반환청구권에 관한 사건에서 대법원은 선례와는 달리 원고와 피고의 지위와 관계에 관한 언급 없이 신속하게 해결할 필요성 여부를 판단하였다. 원고들은 사회적으로 열악한 지위에 있는 다수의 서민이지만, 피고는 자본금 규모가 35조원인 대규모공사이므로, 원고와 피고의 지위라는 시각에서 본다면 부당이득반환청구권에 관한 법률관계에 대해서 상사시효를 적용한 대법원판결에 대해서는 비판의 여지가 있다. 거래에 관여하는 자들이 자신의 권리나 의무에 대하여 민사시효가 적용되는지 상사시효가 적용되는 지를 판단하기 어려워 분쟁이 발생하는 경우가 적지 않다. 이러한 상황에서 어떤 법을 적용하느냐에 따라 소멸시효를 다르게 적용하는 것은 시효제도를 통한 법적 안정성의 도모라는 소멸시효제도의 취지에 반하게 된다. 따라서 입법론적 시각에서 본다면 민사시효와 상사시효를 구별하지 아니하고 통일적으로 시효를 적용하는 것이 타당하다.

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.

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.

표현대리인, 표현대표이사 및 권한을 남용한 대표이사를 통하여 어음을 취득한 상대방과 제삼취득자의 보호요건에 관한 연구

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한양법학회 2014 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.1

In this paper, we introduce Supreme Court rulings and theory on the requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through an apparent agent or an apparent representative director, or directly through a representative director who abused his authority, and review its validity. The Supreme Court of Korea suggests different legal principles regarding the requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through a representative director who abused his authority. The requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through a representative director who abused his authority is divided into the following: a Supreme Court ruling which says that the other party is protected if he had no malice (malice = prior knowledge), a ruling which says that he is protected if there was no gross negligence on his part, and a ruling which says that he is protected if there was no fault on his part. According to the Supreme Court ruling, an inequitable result might occur in the following cases. When the legal principle of apparent authority is applied, there are cases where the third party purchaser cannot be protected even if he exercises due diligence, but when the legal principle of cutting off of personal defense is applied, the third party purchaser can be protected even if he does not exercise due diligence. There is a need to consistently organize the legal principles proposed chaotically by numerous cases on the requisite for protection of the other party and the third party purchaser who have acquired promissory notes directly through an apparent agent, an apparent representative director, or a representative director who abused his authority. If there is gross negligence on the part of the person who has acquired the promissory notes, it is reasonable to not hold the debtor accountable for the promissory notes, because it is not necessary to protect a person who trades promissory notes without exercising any due diligence at all.

온세통신 차입매수 판결에 관한 연구

이훈종(Hun-Jong Lee) 한국기업법학회 2016 企業法硏究 Vol.30 No.1

온세통신 사건에서는 대상회사 온세통신의 자산이 담보로 제공되었는 바, 이로 인하여 온세통신에 손해발생의 위험이 초래된 것이냐는 문제가 제기되었다. 지방법원은 피고인이 인수회사 유비스타에게 담보가치 상당의 재산상 이익을 얻게 한 반면에, 대상회사 온세통신에게 재산상 손해발생의 위험을 초래하였다고 판결하였지만, 고등법원은 피고인이 온세통신에게 담보가액만큼 손해를 가한 것은 아니라고 판결하였다. 대법원은 원심이 설시한 이유 중 미흡한 부분이 있지만, 피고인이 무죄라고 판단한 것은 정당하다고 판결하였다. 본 논문에서는 담보형차입매수에 관한 선례인 신한사건에 관한 대법원 판결에 관하여 살펴 본 후 온세통신 사건에 대하여 검토하고 있다. 먼저 자산이 반대급부 없이 담보로 제공되었는지에 대하여 살펴본 후 신주인수권부사채의 조기상환으로 인한 이해관계에 대하여 살펴보고 있다. 이 사건에서는 대상회사가 자신의 채무를 변제하기 위하여 자산을 담보로 제공하고, 장기대출을 받게 된 것이다. 대상회사 온세통신은 자신의 채무인 신주인수권부사채를 변제하기 위하여 사옥 등을 담보로 제공하고, 은행으로부터 834억 원을 장기대출받았는 바, 장기대출금 834억 원이 담보제공에 대한 반대급부라고 할 수 있다. 그후 대상회사는 사옥을 매도한 대금으로 장기대출채무를 변제하였다. 결과적으로는 대상회사가 사옥을 매도하여 신주인수권부사채를 조기에 상환하게 된 것이라고 할 수 있다. 대상회사에게는 소유권상실이란 불리한 점과 채무의 변제란 유리한 점이 공존하므로, 손해가 초래되었다고 단정할 수 없다. 이 사건에서는 대상회사가 담보제공에 대한 반대급부를 받았으며, 신주인수권부사채의 조기상환으로 인하여 손해를 당하였다고 단정할 수 없으며, 대상회사 주주와 채권자의 권리가 침해되지 아니하였다. 회사는 물론 이해관계인이 손해를 당하지 아니하였으므로, 피고인에게 배임죄가 성립하지 아니한다. 결과적으로는 고등법원의 판결이 타당하지만, 대상회사가 담보제공에 대한 반대급부를 받았다는 것을 명확하게 밝힐 필요가 있다. In the matter of Onse Telecom, since the asset of the Onse Telecom, the target company, was provided as collateral, an issue arose with respect to consequent risk of damages incurred to Onse Telecom. The District Court ruled that the defendant had earned Ubistar, the acquiring company, a profit in assets that is equivalent in value to the collateral, while causing a risk of damages in assets to Onse Telecom; on the other hand, the High Court ruled that the defendant had not caused as much damages as the value of the collateral. The Supreme Court ruled that, although the rationale explained in the original verdict was unsatisfactory, it was reasonable to decide that the defendant was innocent. In this paper, we examine the Supreme Court ruling on the Shinhan case, a precedent on leveraged buyout, and review the Onse Telecom case. First, we examine whether the assets were provided as collateral with due consideration, and then investigate the conflict of interest caused by a premature exercise of bond with an attached warrant. In this case, the target company provided the assets as collateral and obtained a long-term loan in order to repay its debts. Since Onse Telecom, the target company, provided its office building as collateral in order to repay the bond with an attached warrant, and obtained a long-term loan of 84.3 billion Korean Won, the amount of the long-term loan, 84.3 billion Won, may be considered as compensation in exchange for providing the collateral. Since then, the target company used the gains from selling the office building to consolidate the long-term loan. As a result, it can be considered that by selling its office building the target company prematurely paid back the bond with an attached warrant. Since the target company has both the disadvantage of loss of property rights and the advantage of debt service, we cannot conclude that a damage had been incurred. The target company was compensated for providing the collateral, and the early repayment did not cause damages to the target company. Furthermore, the rights of the target company’s shareholders and creditors were not violated. Since there was no damages to the interested parties as well as the company, the defendant cannot be accused of malfeasance in office. In conclusion, the High Court ruling is valid, but it is necessary to make it clear that the target company received benefits in exchange for providing the collateral.

이중대표소송과 법인격부인에 관한 연구

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한양법학회 2013 漢陽法學 Vol.24 No.3

In a double derivative suit, when one company owns all of most shares of another company, resulting in a dominant-subordinate relationship between the two, and when the subsidiary company suffers a damage due to wrongdoings of the directors, a representative suit is brought directly by shareholders of the controlling company on behalf of the subsidiary company against the directors, etc. of the subsidiary company. The Korean High Court interpreted the Korean Commercial Law in light of the necessity of double derivative suits and ruled that the concept of a shareholder who may bring a representative suit includes the shareholders of the controlling company. The Korean Supreme Court, however, dismissed the plaintiff’s double derivative suit on the grounds that the shareholders of the controlling company lack standing to sue. There are many different theories on the validity of such a ruling. In this paper, we examine the double derivative suit in regard to piercing the corporate veil, which does not treat a corporation as a separate legal person in exceptional legal relations and makes the actual responsible bodies liable for the legal relation. When the controlling company was able to exercise its right as a controlling company through representative suits, but did not, it abused its corporate personality or violated the principle of good faith. The shareholders of the controlling company suffered an indirect loss, and the representative director of the subsidiary company gained an unfair profit; the result is in violation of fair and equitable treatment. When the abuse of corporate personality by the controlling company results in a violation of fair and equitable treatment, it is reasonable to protect the profit of the shareholders of the controlling company by piercing the corporate veil and allowing double derivative suits. According to the theory of complementary application, the corporate veil may be pierced, and a double derivative suit may be brought against the representative director of the subsidiary company, asking for damages suffered by the subsidiary company, only when a representative suit is brought against the representative director of the controlling company, but when there was no compensation for the loss of the controlling company. This theory raises a question as to who bears the burden of proving that it was possible to be compensated for damages suffered by the controlling company, when the shareholders of the controlling company brought a representative suit against the representative director of the controlling company. It is difficult to impose the burden of proof on the defendant -the representative director of the subsidiary company-, because he might bring upon himself a loss of trial when he bears the burden of proof. The legal procedures become complicated when the plaintiff-the shareholders of the controlling company-bears the burden of proof. Hence, even if the shareholders of the controlling company did not bring a representative suit against the representative director of the controlling company, it is possible to bring a double derivative suit against the representative director of the subsidiary company.