http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 김택주 ( Taeg Joo Kim ) (검색결과 25 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
김택주 ( Taeg Joo Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2015 상사판례연구 Vol.28 No.1
This paper research on five issues of the supreme court case on corporate law in 2014. First, The double transfer of the stock, before the issuing. If transferee has not transferred stock transfer books he can not insist his stockholder’s right to the corporate, even thought he has right to the corporate by knowing to the corporate the fact that he obtained the stock by transfer or getting corporate’s permission of that. Between the transferors of stock before the issuing, just he can insist his stockholder’s right to the third party by knowing the fact of transfer or corporate’s permission by certificate of fixed date. Second. The delegation of shareholder’s voting right. The commercial law ensure the shareholder’s voting right because it is the most important device to monitor management. But there are some instances that it is troublesome for shareholders to vote by himself at shareholder meeting. In that case, the shareholders need to delegate his voting right to other one. The proxy voting has the role to ensure the shareholder’s voting right. Shareholder’s voting right can be delegated to other one for several shareholder’s meeting comprehensively. A proxy also can delegate his right to the third party duplicately. Third, The transfer of the entire or important partial business that should be approved by majority shareholders over the raised standard at shareholder’s meeting. In order to test wether the transfer of business should be approved at shareholder’s meeting, the standard to estimate wether it is important should be given. The court give the standard that it should be evaluated synthetic reflecting asset of business that should be transferred, total sales, benefits etc. Fourth, The status of work substituter of director. Even though some one elected as representative director after the court nominate work substituter of director, he can’t exercise his representative right. In that case, the work substituter of director nominated by court still has right to exercise director’s right. Fifth, The prohibition of giving the benefit to the shareholders at his executing the shareholder’s right. The court give the standard testing wether it is unlawful by violating the prohibition. The standard is that when the benefit is over the boundary recognised as socially accepted idea, it is unlawful.
-
김택주 ( Taeg Joo Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2011 상사판례연구 Vol.24 No.1
There were not many cases on the corporate law sentenced by the supreme court last year that have hot issues to be reserved. Belows are the summary and the arrangement of the cases that have issues to be reviewed. (1) Split-up of corporate is a important method of a reorganization of a company, The Korean Commercial Code § 503-9 ②, ③ regulate that a newly founded company can limit there responsibility to the debt of the property of invested among the debt of a company splitted-up. In order to that it is needed a procedural fulfillment. It should get the approval of the majority of shareholder meeting. And the company should notice limitation of debt to the creditor who they know or to the public. (2) The right of transfer of stock transfer books belongs to the shareholder`s right, so any shareholder can ask to transfer of stock transfer books to the corporate. When shareholder transfer their stock, the right to ask to transfer of stock transfer books cross to a transferee from a transferor. So a transferor can not ask to the corporate to transfer the stock transfer books without the support of a transferee. (3) New issuance given to transferor of stock before transfer of stock transfer books belong to s transferor when it mattered to the corporate. But between transferor and transferee it should belong to the transferee when it mattered between themselves. The supreme court sentenced it belong to the transferee even it mattered between themselves. But transferee already got the premium of new issuance, so new issuance should belong to a transferor between themselves. (4) A Procedural flaws in shareholder`s meeting of a reduction of capital can not be sued after the date of effect of reduction of capital. A sue of a procedural flaws in shareholder`s meeting included in the procedure of sue of a invalidity of reduction of capital.
-
판례회고(判例回顧) : 2011년 회사법 판례상의 주요 쟁점
김택주 ( Taeg Joo Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2012 상사판례연구 Vol.25 No.3
This paper research on three issues of the corporate law. First, repurchases of it`s own shares by corporate. Old Korean`s commercial code restricted repurchases of it`s own shares. But it was permitted to repurchase shares of it`s own by the amendment of commercial code, provided that the money to repurchases shares comes from distributable profits and existing shareholders are given equal opportunity to sell their shares. In this care it was the issue that purchases on the company`s account but at another`s name also regulated by the provision of commercial code of repurchases of it`s own shares. Supreme court required two element for the share purchases by another`s name to be purchases on company`s account. ① the corporate should give financial aid to the acquirer. ② benefit and loss from shares repurchases should belong to the corporate. Under revised provision, if the corporate repurchases it`s own shares by another`s name, it will be illegal and can be void. Second. the liability of a mutual saving bank director on project finance loan. In the case the issue was wether the business judgement rule can be applied. In order to apply that rule the management by the director should not be illegal. They point the standard to apply the business judgement rule that the director should be informed with respect to the subject enough and he should execute the management to the best interests of the corporate. Third, Corporate divisions. Generally the transferor corporate and transferee corporate are jointly liable for the debts owned by the transferee company before the corporate division. Exceptionally the liability can several when transferee corporate burden only separate liability of the invested assets by the special agreement. In that case the transferor should notify to the known creditors of the fact of separated liability. If they neglect notifying the fact, the transferor corporate and transferee corporate should burden the joint liability. The supreme court admit the range of known creditors broadly.
-
김택주(Kim Taeg Joo) 국민대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.29 No.2
키코는 통화옵션계약으로, 2008년 글로벌 금융위기로 인하여 달러 환율이 급등함으로써 키코 가입으로 큰 손해를 본 중소기업들이 키코 상품을 판매한 은행을 상대로 손해배상청구를 하게 되었다. 키코 사안에서는 불공정행위 여부, 약관규제법의 규제 대상여부, 적합성의 원칙, 설명의무 등 다양한 쟁점이 문제되었는데, 대법원은 2013년 키코와 관련하여 4건의 판결을 내림으로써 이에 대한 태도를 정리하였다. 여기서는 이중 키코 판결에서 적합성의 원칙과 관련된 부분에 대하여만 검토하고자 한다. 적합성의 원칙은 금융투자업자가 투자권유를 함에 있어서 권유가 그 고객의 투자목적, 재산상태, 투자경험에 비추어 적합해야 한다는 것으로, 여기서는 적합성의 원칙에 위반한 경우에 손해배상청구를 할 수 있는가가 문제되고 있다. 먼저 키코계약이 적합성의 원칙에 위반하였는가와 관련하여 환 헤지와 오버헤지가 문제되는데, 환 헤지 여부와 적합성의 원칙의 관계를 보면, 판례는 키코 상품은 특정구간에 있어서 헤지의 효과가 있다는 점을 지적하며 환 헤지 목적에 부합하는 상품임을 인정하고 있다. 이에 대하여 어떤 상품이 헤지 효과가 있는지 여부를 부분적으로 판단하는 것은 문제가 있으며, 상품전체의 효과를 가지고 판단하는 것이 타당하다는 등의 반대 견해도 제기된다. 그러나 녹아웃 구간을 두지 않을 경우 환율하락으로 기업은 헤지를 할 수 있지만 키코 상품을 판매하는 금융투자업자의 입장에서는 큰 손해를 입을 수밖에 없다는 점 등에서, 녹아웃이나 녹인 구간의 존재와 같은 그 구조를 문제삼아 적합하지 않다고 보기는 어렵다고 본다. 다만 오버헤지의 경우에는 기업이 감당할 수 없는 위험을 떠않는 상품에 대한 권유가 되므로 적합성의 원칙에 위반할 여지가 커지게 된다. 이에 대하여 판례는 기본적으로 오버헤지 여부는 적합성의 원칙에 대한 위반여부를 판단하는데 중요한 요소로 보지만 오버헤지가 되었다고 바로 그 위반을 인정하지는 않는다. 보건데 오버헤지 여부만으로 판단하게 되면 어느 정도의 오버헤지가 되었을 때 주의의무 위반을 인정할 것인가의 한계를 정하기가 어렵다. 따라서 오버헤지가 된다고 바로 적합성의 원칙위반을 인정하는 것은 무리이고, 이때 피권유자의 수출실적, 과거 매출액과 주요 매출처 현황, 자산 등 고객의 개별적•구체적 사정의 고려하여 판단해야 한다. 다음으로 적합성의 원칙에 위반한 경우에 손해배상책임을 인정할 것인가를 보면, 적합성의 원칙의 적용을 지나치게 확대할 경우에는 자기책임의 원칙이 형해화될 수 있고, 금융투자업자의 입장에서는 비용의 증대로 금융투자상품의 가격상승의 요인이 있게 되며, 결과적으로 그 부담이 고객에게 전과될 수 있다. 결국 금융투자업자의 영업상의 한계를 벗어났는가를 종합적으로 고려하여 그 책임을 인정할 수밖에 없다고 본다. 판례도 고객에 대한 보호의무를 위반하였을 때 손해배상책임을 인정하며, 그 기준으로서 “과도한 위험을 수반하는 행위를 적극적으로 권유한 경우”를 들고 있다. It is needed to impose the duty of care to the broker or dealer in recommending the securities exchange. For example, we can present the suitability rule and the duty of explanation. Suitability rule is that the broker or dealer in the securities market should recommend suitable security to the investor upon the basis of the facts disclosed by the customer. It comes from the rule of shingle theory and contains rule that they may recommend the purchase of a security only when there is a reasonable basis for believing that the security is "suitable" for the customer. This paper deals with whether the broker or dealer breach the suitability rule when recommend to buy the KIKO(Over the count Derivative). When investor suffered loss as a result of invest, what is the way to recover the loss. Of course, the broker or dealer will be regulated by administrative measures, but, what is important to the investor is restoring the damage. In that case we can think out a means of the compensation for loss by reason of illegality. In order to get the compensation for the loss by reason of illegality, it is needed to be illegal. But, the supreme court do not presume the illegality just by a violation of the regulation act, they judge it illegal just when they breach the protect liability of investor even it is belong to the violation of the suitability rule or the duty of explanation. After KIKO case, there were revision of the Capital Market Act. By the act, the broker or dealer just can deal the over the count Derivatives that belong the purpose of Hedge and the loss and gains from the trade should not beyond the loss and gains of the hedge object.
-
RISS
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
