電子商業廣告物인 스팸메일의 法的 問題點과 그 解決方案

정준우 한국상사법학회 2000 商事法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

海上企業主體의 責任制限制度

鄭埈雨 한양법학회 1998 漢陽法學 Vol.9 No.-

公正去來法上 不當한 表示ㆍ廣告 規制規定의 合理的 運用에 관한 考察

鄭埈雨 한양법학회 1998 漢陽法學 Vol.9 No.-

地上第3者의 損害에 대한 航空賠償責任의 基本構造

鄭埈雨 한양법학회 1992 漢陽法學 Vol.3 No.-

雙方過失로 인한 船舶衝突과 그 責任의 分配

鄭埈雨 한양법학회 1999 漢陽法學 Vol.10 No.-

海上物件運送人의 責任制限 排除要件에 관한 考察

정준우 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.27 No.3

In the article 797 of the Maritime Law amended 2007, it is provided the limitation of liability for maritime claims and the reasons of exception of the limitation of marine carrier’s liability. This provision is, however, received from the article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, which is provided that a person shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result, and received from the Hague-Visby Rules article 4 paragraphs 5 (e), which is provided that neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. But these articles are received from the article 13 of the Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, which is provided that the limits of liability specified in article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. There is, however, no definition regulations on the meaning of an act or omission of the carrier, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result and the concept & scope of carrier by sea. Thus the dispute often arise from these issues. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the legal problems of provisions of the Maritime Law and the Conventions with regard to the concept and scope of the carrier by sea and the reasons of exception of limitation of liability, and suggested the measures for improvement on the legal problems of the Maritime Law. In the article 797 of the Maritime Law amended 2007, it is provided the limitation of liability for maritime claims and the reasons of exception of the limitation of marine carrier’s liability. This provision is, however, received from the article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, which is provided that a person shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result, and received from the Hague-Visby Rules article 4 paragraphs 5 (e), which is provided that neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. But these articles are received from the article 13 of the Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, which is provided that the limits of liability specified in article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. There is, however, no definition regulations on the meaning of an act or omission of the carrier, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result and the concept & scope of carrier by sea. Thus the dispute often arise from these issues. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the legal problems of provisions of the Maritime Law and the Conventions with regard to the concept and scope of the carrier by sea and the reasons of exception of limitation of liability, and suggested the measures for improvement on the legal problems of the Maritime Law.

2020년 개정상법상 감사기관에 관한 개정내용 검토

정준우 한국상사법학회 2021 商事法硏究 Vol.39 No.4

A stock company has a variety of institutions divided by function, and the characteristic is that directors who have a status independent from shareholders, who are investors, constitute the management organization. Therefore, in order for shareholders who are marginalized from management to protect themselves, appropriate control mechanisms for directors are needed. Thus, the Commercial Act established a specialized monitoring body such as an audit (or audit committee) to supervise the day-to-day performance of directors, and strengthened the independence and authority of the audit organization. Nevertheless, as various problems continue to arise, the Commercial Act revised in 2020 revised some regulations to effectively secure the independence of auditors and to reasonably resolve controversies related to the appointment and dismissal of auditors. Was newly established. However, it is still controversial and requires an in-depth review. First, in the case of the revised contents of the audit: 1) As the disclosure matters of the audit candidate, there are deficiencies in the case of the fact that they received a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, etc. 2) The reasons for restriction of employment, etc. stipulated in the law may cause confusion in practice due to unclear reasons for disqualification. 3) In the reasons for disqualification of the full-time audit, the largest shareholder and his special relationship are omitted. 4) It is not desirable for the company to reduce the quorum of voting rights necessary for the appointment of auditors to a majority of the voting rights present because the company conducts electronic voting. 5) This is because, in the case of unlisted companies, the voting rights of the majority shareholder are not limited when dismissing the auditor. Next, in the case of amendments to the Audit Committee: 1) In relation to the reason for disqualification of the outside director, which is the core of the audit committee, extending the cooling period from 2 years to 3 years has practically no effect on securing the independence of the audit committee. 2) Limiting the total tenure of outside directors to 9 years is not only an obstacle to training professional outside directors, but also can infringe on the freedom of career choice. 3) It is not reasonable to apply the separate election method to only one or more of the audit committee members. 4) It is not desirable to discriminate against the restrictions on voting rights for each type of major shareholder in dismissal of audit committee members elected by the collective election method and audit committee members elected by the separate election method. 5) In dismissal, it is not advisable to discriminate against the restriction of voting rights according to whether the company is listed, or whether the company is listed, or whether the company is listed as an audit committee member who is an outside director, an audit committee member who is not an outside director. Therefore, legislative supplementation through re-examination is necessary, in this process, it is necessary to establish a variety of audit systems in the commercial Act, and to ensure the company's autonomous choice regarding the audit system. 주식회사는 기능별로 분화된 다양한 기관을 두고 있는데, 그 특징은 출자자인 주주로부터 독립된 지위를 갖는 이사들이 경영기구를 구성한다는 점이다. 따라서 경영에서 소외된 주주들은 그 스스로를 보호하기 위해 이사에 대한 적절한 통제장치가 필요하다. 이에 상법은 감사(또는 감사위원회)와 같은 전문적인 감사기구를 두어 이사의 일상적인 업무집행을 감독하도록 하였고, 감사기관의 독립성을 강화하며 그 권한을 확대하여왔다. 그럼에도 불구하고 다양한 문제가 발생하자, 2020년 개정상법은 감사기관의 독립성을 실효적으로 확보하고, 감사주체의 선임과 해임에 관련된 그동안의 논란을 합리적으로 해결하기 위해 일부 규정을 개정하고 신설하였지만, 여전히 논란이 있으므로 입법적인 보완이 필요하다. 먼저 감사에 관한 개정의 경우 ① 후보자에 관한 공시사항으로 개정상법이 추가한 국세징수법 등에 의한 체납처분을 받은 사실 여부 등의 경우에는 미비점이 있어 후보자의 업무적 적격성 판단기준으로서 미흡하고, ② 법령에서 정한 취업제한사유 등이란 불명확한 결격사유로 인해 오히려 혼란이 야기될 수 있으며, ③ 상근감사의 결격사유에 최대주주와 그의 특수관계인이 누락되어 있고, ④ 전자투표를 실시한다고 하여 감사선임에서의 의결정족수를 출석한 의결권의 과반수로 완화한 것은 바람직하지 않으며, ⑤ 비상장회사의 감사해임에 있어서는 여전히 대주주의 의결권이 제한되지 않는다. 따라서 입법적 보완이 필요한데, 이 과정에서는 의결정족수의 계산에 관한 제371조 제2항도 함께 개정해야 한다. 다음으로 감사위원회에 관한 개정의 경우 ① 감사위원의 핵심인 사외이사의 결격사유와 관련하여 냉각기간을 2년에서 3년으로 연장한 것은 감사위원의 독립성 확보에 실제적으로 큰 영향이 없고, ② 사외이사의 재직기간을 합산 9년으로 제한함으로써 오히려 전문적인 사외이사를 양성하는데 장애가 되고, 직업선택의 자유를 침해할 수도 있으며, ③ 감사위원 중 1명에 대해서만 분리선출방식을 채택한 것은 실효성이 떨어지고, ④ 일괄선출방식으로 선임된 감사위원과 분리선출방식으로 선임된 감사위원의 해임에 있어서 대주주별로 의결권 제한에 차별을 두는 것은 바람직하지 않으며, ⑤ 해임과 관련하여 사외이사인 감사위원과 사외이사가 아닌 감사위원 그리고 회사의 상장 여부 및 대주주별로 차별을 두는 것은 바람직하지 않다. 따라서 입법적 보완이 필요한데, 이 과정에서는 상법에 다양한 감사시스템을 구축해 두고, 감사시스템에 관한 기업의 자율적인 선택권도 보장할 필요가 있다.

이사의 보수에 관한 최근 판례상 쟁점 검토

정준우,조동선 한국상사법학회 2022 商事法硏究 Vol.40 No.4

Since the relationship between a director and the company is a delegation under Article §686 (1) of the Civil Act, the directorsʼ remuneration is free of charge in principle. In order for a director who bears the duty of fidelity and confidentiality to properly exercise his/her duties under the Commercial Act, with the duty to be selective with respect to the company as a basic duty, a person with qualifications must first be appointed as a director, and then this is because the payment of a correspondingly sufficient remuneration must be guaranteed. However, with regard to remuneration for directors, Article §388 of the Commercial Act simply stipulates, ʻʻif the amount is not determined in the articles of incorporation, it shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholdersʼʼ, and complex and diverse legal disputes regarding the scope and method of determining remuneration have arisen. Moreover, in the corporate reality in Korea, where the concentration of ownership and management is deepening through vertical or horizontal affiliated relationships, there are cases where the arbitrariness of the controlling shareholder, who exerts a strong influence on the directors, intervenes to determine the remuneration of the directors. Therefore, in order to cause a dispute, it should be interpreted and applied as follows. That is, 1) Article §388 of the Commercial Act is a compulsory provision, so the agreement or payment of remuneration to directors without the provisions of the articles of incorporation or the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders is invalid. 2) Remuneration is economic consideration paid regularly or irregularly as compensation for the performance of duties of directors, regardless of their name. Therefore, the special performance pay that the company pays to motivate the achievement of performance is a remuneration, but the dismissal compensation is not a remuneration because it is a compensation for damages rather than a reward for performing the job. 3) Director's remuneration cannot be comprehensively delegated to the board of directors even with the articles of incorporation or a resolution of the general shareholders' meeting, but individual remuneration can be delegated to the board of directors after the limit of remuneration has been set in the articles of incorporation. 4) The interim settlement of severance pay should be regarded as remuneration while in service, unlike severance pay. Therefore, if a company intends to pay interim settlement of severance pay to directors, the timing and amount of such payment shall be determined by the articles of incorporation or a resolution at the general meeting of shareholders. 5) The remuneration of a director shall be reasonably determined by combining his/her work ability, job content and fidelity, and contribution to business performance, and shall be paid at an appropriate level. 상법상 이사는 주주총회에서 보통결의로 선임되어 이사회의 구성원으로서 회사의 업무를 집행하고 감독하는 법정 권한을 가진 회사의 수임인이다. 이사와 회사의 법률관계는 위임이므로 보수와 관련하여 무상이 원칙이지만(민법 제686조 제1항), 실무에서는 통상적으로 이사에게 직무수행의 대가로서 일정한 보수를 지급하고 있다. 회사에 대하여 선관주의의무를 비롯하여 충실의무와 비밀유지의무 등을 지는 이사가 직무권한을 제대로 행사하려면 적격성을 갖춘 자가 선임되어야 함은 물론 직무수행에 상응하는 충분한 대가가 보장되어야 하기 때문이다. 그런데 이사의 보수와 관련하여 상법 제388조는 ʻʻ정관에 그 액을 정하지 아니한 때에는 주주총회의 결의로 이를 정한다ʼʼ라고만 규정하고 있어 그 포섭범위와 결정방법 등에 관하여 복잡·다양한 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 더욱이 수직적·수평적 계열관계 등을 통해 소유와 경영의 집중화가 심화된 우리의 기업 현실에서는 이사에게 강력한 영향력을 행사하는 지배주주의 자의성이 개입되어 이사의 보수가 결정되는 경우도 발생하고 있다. 따라서 이러한 분쟁을 줄이려면 상법을 개정해야 하지만, 우선은 다음과 같이 해석·적용할 필요가 있다. 즉 ① 상법 제388조는 강행규정이므로 정관이나 주주총회결의에 의하지 않은 보수의 약정이나 지급은 무효이다. ② 보수는 그 명칭에 상관없이 직무수행에 대한 보상으로서 정기적·부정기적으로 지급되는 일체의 경제적 대가이므로, 성과 달성을 위한 동기부여를 위해 지급하는 특별성과급과 이사의 안정적인 직무수행을 지원하기 위해 회사가 대납하는 임원배상책임보험료는 보수에 포함되지만, 해직보상금은 직무수행의 대가가 아닌 손해배상액의 예정이므로 보수가 아니다. ③ 이사의 보수는 정관이나 주주총회결의로도 이사회에 포괄적으로 위임할 수 없지만, 정관 등으로 보수한도액을 정한 후 이사의 개별적 보수는 이사회에 위임할 수 있다. 다만 이때에도 합리적 기준을 제시하거나 일정한 한계를 설정할 필요는 있다. ④ 퇴직금중간정산금은 퇴직금과 다르게 재직 중의 보수로 보아야 하므로, 회사가 이사에게 중간정산금을 지급하려면 지급시기와 금액 등을 정관이나 주주총회결의로 정해야 한다. ⑤ 이사의 보수는 업무능력, 직무의 내용과 충실도, 경영성과에 대한 기여도 등을 종합하여 합리적으로 정해야 하고 적정한 수준으로 지급해야 한다.

國際航空運送에 있어서 WARSAW體制의 人的 適用範圍

鄭埈雨 한양법학회 1991 漢陽法學 Vol.2 No.-

租稅法上의 居住者槪念에 관한 一考察

鄭埈雨 한국국제조세협회 1997 조세학술논집 Vol.13 No.-