주식회사 퇴임이사 법리의 실무상 쟁점

김지평 법무부 2016 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.76

This paper reviews practical issues associated with the legal principles on retiring directors of a stock company. If a director resigns for unexpected circumstances or retires due to death, dismissal, etc., the company’s operational vacuum is unavoidable. In preparation for such unexpected vacancy, Article 386, Paragraph (1) of the KCC provides that in case of the vacancy of the minimum number of directors prescribed by laws or the articles of incorporation, the retiring director shall continue to have the rights and obligations as a director until a newly appointed director takes office. However, composition of board of directors of a stock company, especially a large-sized listed company, is pretty complicated. Moreover, various requirements under the laws, such as the Korean Commercial Code (KCC), provide detailed regulations on listed companies’ governance structure, such as composition of the board of director consisting of executive directors, outside directors, etc. and that of committees under the board of directors consisting of an audit committee, evaluation and remuneration committee, nomination committee, etc. In this regard, such a case often becomes at issue since it is unclear how the above regulation to complement the company’s operational vacuum caused by the vacancy of retiring directors can be applied to the multilayered and complicated structure of the board of directors and committees thereunder. Therefore, this paper will systematically examine the relevant issues and draw a reasonable theory of interpretation. First of all, in relation to requirements for applying the legal principles on retiring directors under Article 386, Paragraph (1) of the KCC, possible issues include interpretation on the scope of the vacancy of the number of directors prescribed by law or the articles of incorporation, requirements on the cause of vacancy such as expiration of term of office or resignation, etc. Whether the regulations on retiring directors are applicable in case where there is no lack of the number of directors but of the number of representative directors can also be problematic in practice. As long as legal provisions provide that Article 386 of the KCC shall apply mutatis mutandis to representative directors, it is reasonable to consider that the regulations on retiring directors apply also to the above case. In relation to the effect of applying the legal principles on retiring directors, first, with regard to the maintenance of a position as director, an issue can be raised when resignation or retirement from expiration of term of office by a director, etc. concurrently holding two or more positions results in lack of the prescribed number of any of his/her positions by law or the articles of incorporation: whether such director should continue to hold rights and obligations also for his/her other positions, in addition to the position for which lack of prescribed number occurs. It is considered reasonable to apply the regulations on retiring directors also to other positions and maintain relevant authorities to the extent that the position for which lack of prescribed number occurs premises on the existence of such other positions. Further, other than the issue over maintenance of a position for which lack of prescribed number occurs, issues relating to appointment of interim directors as well as administrative charges for delay in registration of retirement need to be reviewed. In particular, the relationship between application for appointment of interim directors under Article 386, Paragraph (2) of the KCC and preliminary injunction for suspension of performance of duties comes into question. If an issue arises with regard to the retiring director’s performance of duties, the application for appointment of interim director will not result in any operational vacuum of the company as an interim director will be appointed at the same time as the retiring director’s performance of duties is suspended; whereas, the preliminary injunction for suspension of performance of duties cannot be an ultimate solution to the company’s operational vacuum issue as only the retiring director’s performance of duties will be suspended. Thus, it would be reasonable to address the issue promptly and ultimately by allowing the application for appointment of interim director only. A special issue relating to the legal principles on retiring directors that needs to be reviewed is related to Article 542-8 of the KCC relating to the prescribed number of outside directors and Article 542-11 of the KCC relating to the prescribed number of audit committee members, which provide that in case of a vacancy occurring from resignation, death, etc., such vacancy can be filled at the first general meeting of shareholders convened after such vacancy has occurred, without the need of immediate substitution. Whether application of the regulations on administrative charges under Article 635, Paragraph (3) of the KCC and/or the regulations on retiring directors under Article 386 of the KCC is excluded pursuant to the above regulations needs to be reviewed. In particular, as the above regulations provide cause of vacancy as resignation, death, etc., whether expiration of term of office should be included as cause of vacancy can be a controversial issue. Regarding whether to include expiration of term of office as cause of vacancy needs to be reviewed by separately examining each of the intent of excluding the regulations on administrative charges and the regulations on retiring directors based on the provisions under Article 542-8 and Article 542-11 of the KCC. Also, in relation to the application of provisions on accidental absence under the articles of incorporation to retiring directors, whether the authority of an substitute director can be acknowledged by applying the regulations on accidental absence under the articles of incorporation in a particular case where the retiring director refuses to perform his/her duties needs to be reviewed by considering theoretical rationality and practical feasibility. In particular, if the retiring representative director refuses to attend the office and perform his/her duties after notifying the company of an objective reason for his/her absence, serious occupational vacuum is unavoidable until his/her successor is appointed. In this case, it would be practically reasonable to avoid such operational vacuum in the company’s management by broadly interpreting the provisions on accidental absence and allowing the substitute director to perform the duties of a representative director in accordance with the relevant provisions under the articles of incorporation. 본 논문에서는 주식회사 퇴임이사 법리의 실무상 쟁점에 대해서 다룬다. 주식회사 이사가 예기치 못한 사정으로 사임하거나 사망이나 해임 등의 사유로 퇴임하는 경우에는 회사의 업무공백이 불가피하다. 이를 대비하여 상법 제386조 제1항에서는 법률 또는 정관 상의 이사 결원의 경우 새로 선임된 이사가 취임할 때까지 퇴임한 이사가 이사의 권리의무가 있다고 규정하고 있다. 그러나 주식회사, 특히 대규모 상장회사의 이사회의 구성은 상당히 복잡하고, 법률적으로도 상법 등에서 상장회사의 지배구조와 관련하여 사내이사, 기타비상무이사 및 사외이사 등 이사회의 구성과 감사위원회, 평가보상위원회, 사외이사후보추천위원회 등 이사회 내 위원회의 구성 요건에 대해서 상세하게 규정하고 있다. 그러므로 이사의 퇴임으로 인한 업무공백을 보충하기 위한 위 규정이 다층적인 구조로 복잡하게 이루어진 이사회 및 이사회 내 위원회 구조에 어떻게 적용될 수 있는지에 대해서는 해석 상 불분명한 점이 많다. 본 논문에서는 이와 관련한 쟁점을 체계적으로 살펴 보고 이에 대한 합리적인 해석론을 도출해 보려고 한다. 우선 상법 제386조 제1항과 관련한 주식회사 퇴임이사 법리의 적용 요건과 관련해서는 법률 또는 정관에 정한 이사 등의 원수의 결원의 범위에 대한 해석 문제 및 이사 등의 임기만료 혹은 사임 등 결원의 원인에 대한 요건 등이 문제된다. 이사의 원수에는 결원이 없으나 대표이사 원수에 결원이 있는 경우 퇴임이사 규정이 적용되는지 등도 실무상 문제되는데, 법문 상 대표이사에 대해서도 상법 제386조가 준용되는 이상 위와 같은 경우에도 퇴임이사 규정이 적용된다고 보는 것이 합리적이다. 퇴임이사 법리의 적용 효과와 관련해서는 우선 해당 지위의 유지와 관련하여2개 이상의 지위를 겸하는 이사 등이 사임이나 임기만료로 퇴임하는 경우 그 지위 중 어느 하나의 법률 또는 정관상 원수를 결하게 되는 경우 해당 지위에 대한 권리의무를 계속 보유하는 것에 더하여 다른 지위에 대한 권리의무도 계속 보유하는 것인지 여부가 문제될 수 있다. 결원이 생긴 지위가 다른 지위를 전제로 하는 경우에 한하여 해당 지위에 대해서도 퇴임이사 규정이 적용되어 그 권한을 유지한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 또한 결원이 생긴 지위의 유지 문제 이외에 일시 이사의 선임 및 퇴임등기 지연에 따른 과태료와 관련한 문제도 검토가 필요하다. 특히 상법 제386조 제2항의 일시이사 선임신청과 직무집행정지가처분의 관계가 문제된다. 퇴임이사의 직무집행에 대해서 문제를 제기하는 경우에는, 일시이사 선임신청은 기존의 퇴임이사 직무수행이 정지되는 동시에 일시이사가 선임되어 회사 업무수행이 정지되지 않는 반면 직무집행정지가처분이 이루어지는 경우에는 기존 퇴임이사의 직무수행만이 정지되므로 회사 업무집행 정지의 문제가 궁극적으로 해결되지 않는다는 점에서 일시이사 선임신청만을 허용하여 신속하고 종국적으로 문제를 해결할 수 있도록 하는 것이 타당하다. 퇴임이사 법리와 관련된 특수한 문제로는 사임ㆍ사망 등의 사유로 결원이 발생할 경우 즉시 충원을 요구하지 않고 다음 주주총회에서 충원하면 된다고 규정하고 있는 상법 제542조의 8의 사외이사 정원 규정 및 상법 제542조의 11의 감사위원회 정원 규정에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 위와 같은 규정에 따라서 상법 제635조 제3항의 과태료 규정이 배제되는지 여부 및 상법 제386조의 퇴임이사 규정이 배제되는지 여부에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 특히 위 규정에서 사임ㆍ사망 등을 결원의 원인으로 규정하고 있는데, 임기만료도 이에 포함된다고 보아야 하는지가 문제될 수 있다. 이에 대해서는 법 제542조의 8 및 상법 제542조의 11의 규정들을 통해 과태료 규정 및 퇴임이사 규정이 배제되는 취지를 각각 구분하여 살펴서 임기만료도 이에 포함된다고 볼 지를 검토해야 한다. 또한 퇴임이사에 대한 정관상 유고규정의 적용과 관련하여 특히 퇴임이사가 직무수행을 거부하는 경우 정관 상 유고규정을 적용하여 직무대행자의 권한을 인정할 수 있는지 여부에 대해서도 이론적 합리성과 실무적 타당성을 감안한 검토가 필요하다. 특히 퇴임 대표이사가 직무를 수행할 수 없음을 객관적으로 회사에 표시하고 출근 및 직무수행을 거부하는 경우에는 후임 대표이사가 선임되기 전까지는 심각한 업무공백이 발생할 수 밖에 없다. 이러한 경우에는 유고규정을 넓게 해석하여 정관 상의 직무대행 규정에 따라서 직무대행자가 대표이사 직무를 수행하여 회사 경영에 차질이 없도록 하는 것이 현실에 부합하는 합리적인 해석이라고 생각한다.

퇴임이사에 대한 직무집행정지 가처분

이철기(Lee, Cheol-Ki) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.3

Supreme Court’s Decision No.2009Ma1311 states that a director retiring from office when there are more than minimum number of directors remaining in office as prescribed by Commercial Acts or by the articles of incorporation, the director naturally no longer has the rights and duties of a director as of the director’s resignation or expiration of his term of office, and in the case that the director retains the effective rights and duties of the position despite his resignation or the expiration of his term of office, a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director can be requested by way of claim to confirmation of non-existence of the rights and duties of the director. This finding is reasonable in light of Article 386 Section 1 of the Commercial Acts, which limits the instance of a retiring director to retain rights and duties of a director to when the directors remaining in office would otherwise become fewer than the minimum number prescribed by Commercial Acts or by the articles of incorporation. On the other hand, the Decision states that since Article 386 Section 2 of the Commercial Acts allows for the court to appoint a person who is to temporarily perform the duties of a director upon application if required, e.g. in case where it is impossible or inappropriate for a retiring director who retains the rights and duties of a director under Article 386 Section 1 of the Commercial Acts to retain the rights and duties of a director, a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director cannot be requested separately based on his resignation or expiration of his term of office or the fact that retiring director had a reason to be terminated. However, a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director, which is a form of a preservative measure, is different in its purpose and principle from “a person who is to temporarily perform the duties of a director” as prescribed in Article 386 Section 2 of the Commercial Acts, it is more reasonable to understand that the two measures are not mutually exclusive. There are no laws showing that one cannot request a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director when it is appropriate to appoint a person who is to temporarily perform the duties of a director, and the merit of a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director, which is the temporary and emergency nature of the measure, is of a far greater benefit in reality in providing immediate relief to those in need than the appointment of a person who is to temporarily perform the duties of a director. Therefore, in the special circumstance where it is determinable that the person who is exercising the rights and duties of a retiring director does not in fact possess the status or the rights of a retiring director, it is reasonable to assume that it is allowable to request a Provisional Injunction on Performing the Duties of a Director by way of claim to confirmation of non-existence of the rights and duties of the director.

근로자성을 지닌 임원의 퇴직금제도에 관한 노동법적 고찰

정명현 사법발전재단 2019 사법 Vol.1 No.48

상법상의 임원은 회사와 고용관계가 아닌 위임관계에 있다고 보아 민법 및 상법의 규정이 적용되고 노동법이 적용되지 않지만, 상법상의 이사가 아닌 상무, 전무 등의 명칭으로 불리는 비등기임원(집행임원)은 비록 실무상 임원으로 지칭된다고 하더라도 그 실질은 사업 또는 사업장에서 임금을 목적으로 사용종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하는 근로자에 해당하기 때문에 이들 비등기임원은 노동법의 적용을 받는다고 할 수 있다. 현재 다수의 기업에서는 임원퇴직금지급규정에 따라 상법상의 등기임원만이 아니라 비등기임원까지 포함하여 일반근로자보다 2배 내지 6배까지 높은 퇴직금지급률을 적용하여 지급하고 있다. 근로자성을 갖는 임원은 근로자에 해당하므로 노동법이 적용되고 이들 임원의 퇴직금에 관한 사항을 정하고 있는 임원퇴직금지급규정은 근로기준법상의 취업규칙에 해당한다고 할 수 있다. 임원 승진 시 기존의 근로관계를 단절하고 위임관계로 변경한다고 하더라도 그것이 유효한지는 그 실질을 보고 판단해야 한다. 여러 회사에 임원으로 겸임하여 각각의 회사로부터 퇴직금을 지급받는 것은 기여도에 비례하지 않는 비합리적인 보상이라고 평가된다. 근로자퇴직급여보장법상의 퇴직금차등금지규정도 근로자인 임원에게 동일하게 적용된다고 할 것이므로, 임원의 업무능력, 성과 등을 반영해 일반근로자보다 더 높은 보상이 필요하면 기본적으로 임원이 받는 보수(연봉)를 높게 설정하여 보상을 하는 방법으로 해결해야 하고 이와 별도로 임원의 퇴직금산정기준을 달리함으로써 일반근로자에 대해 중복적인 차등을 설정하는 것은 바람직하지 않다고 본다. 원래 퇴직금은 퇴직 이후 안정적인 생활을 보장하기 위한 노후대책으로서의 의미가 강하고 일반직원의 퇴직금에 비해 지나치게 많은 임원의 퇴직금은 경영이익 분배의 공정성의 문제가 제기될 뿐만 아니라 근로자 간 형평성에도 반한다고 본다. As executive officers under the Commercial Act are deemed to be in a delegation relationship with the company, not an employment relationship, they are governed by the Civil Act and the Commercial Act instead of the labor law. However, non-registered executive officers holding such positions as a managing or executive director, despite being referred to as executive officers in practice, are subject to the labor laws because they are considered as workers who provide labor to an employer for wage purposes in a use-dependent relationship. Currently, in accordance with the executive retirement allowance regulations, many companies are applying retirement allowance rates that are two to six times higher than those applied to regular employees in paying retirement allowances to their executives, including not only registered executive officers under the Commercial Act but also non-registered executive officers. Since executive officers having an employee status are workers under Labor Standards Act, they are subject to the labor laws. Therefore, the executive retirement allowance regulations stipulating the matters relating to the retirement allowances of these executive officers can be said to correspond to the employment rules on Labor Standards Act. Despite the transition of the relationship between a company and its employee promoted to an executive officer into a delegation relationship after having severed the previous employment relationship, the validity of such a transition must be determined based on the actual substance of the relationship. A person holding concurrent positions in several companies as an executive officer and receiving retirement allowances from each of those companies is considered to be compensated unreasonably, disproportionate to his level of contribution. A provision for the prohibition of differentiation in the retirement allowance under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits applies to executive officers having an employee status. As such, in a case where it appears to be necessary to provide executive officers with higher compensation than regular employees by taking into account their job performance and accomplishments, the executive officers can be compensated with a high salary. The overpayment of the retirement allowance to executive officers having an employee status by applying a high retirement allowance rate than those applied to ordinary workers, thereby discriminating against the ordinary workers, is undesirable. A retirement allowance is originally intended to ensure a stable livelihood after retirement. Excessive retirement allowance of executive officers having an employee status compared to regular employees’ retirement allowances not only raises concern with regard to fairness in the distribution of corporate profits but also goes against the equity principle among individual workers.