미국법상 폐쇄적 기업에서의 경영자의 신인의무 및 강행법규성

송석언 ( Seok Eon Song ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 2009 국제법무 Vol.1 No.2

차입매수(Leveraged Buyout)와 배임죄

송석언(Song Seok Eon) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論文集 Vol.40 No.2

In legal perspective, mergers and acquisitions can be seen as a consolidation of characters. It is a process in which one of the two corporate bodies is absorbed and merged into the other one. In most cases, the corporate body who is acquiring the other usually covers the cost of merger and acquisition. This, on the other hand, puts her in the need of vast amount of financial resource. In order to acquire such resource, the company can use the assets of the company being acquired as collateral for the loans (Leveraged Buyout) allowing the company to takeover another company without committing a lot of capital In Sinhan LBO case, the court assessed the leveraged buyout as the breach of trust and gave a criminal penalty. However, in Hanil LBO case and Onse Communication LBO case, the court did not see the act of leveraged buyout as the breach of trust. The difference between Sinhan LBO case and the other two cases are as follows. In Sinhan LBO case, the company being acquired, S&K World Korea’s assets were used as collateral for the loans before the actual acquisitions took place. However, in the other two cases, there existed a contract between the companies as to provide the assets of the companies being acquired as collateral for the loans but the provision of security did not happen before the actual acquisitions took place. From this, two questions arise. First is how to define the subject of the damage occurred, and second is the standard for assessing the damage. There are three conflicting theories that try to answer these questions and of those three, the ‘company theory’ is the most reasonable answer. By applying this theory, the precedent’s stance can be easily understood. Moreover, it can be questioned whether it is justifiable to see the provision of security as damage. In the capitalist society, the trade of goods occurs through the means of money and this money functions as a unifying measure of value. Consequently, when an asset such as real property is provided as security, the value of that specific asset also decreases by that amount of security. Therefore, it is justifiable to see the provision of security as damage. The precedent refers to this as ‘a risk of property damage’. Furthermore, it can be questioned whether the damage can be acknowledged based on an unfair merger. In the field of accounting, mergers and acquisitions is seen as a purchase. The ｢Corporate Accounting Standards Book(1103rd)｣, lists detailed accounting standards for calculating the acquisition cost and acquisition value during a business merger. According to this standard, the company may be sold at a price that is lower or higher than its actual value but as long as it does not exceed the usual trade custom, it is difficult to see an unfair merger as damage.

중국과 한국의 주식회사 이사의 의무에 대한 비교연구

송석언 ( Seok Eon Song ),육평 ( Yuk Pyung ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 2011 法과 政策 Vol.17 No.2

영국회사법상 회계감사(조사)제도에 관한 고찰

송석언 ( Seok Eon Song ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.49

Recently, the main purpose of reform in the UK Companies Act has been to strengthen company audits and investigations. In relation to this, the position of a parent act has been taken by the UK Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act [C(AICE) Act], which wasenacted in 2004. This paper analyzed the content of the C(AICE) Act, and the principle contents are shown in terms of the following. First, the C(AICE) Act prescribes the recognised supervisory bodies and contains additional requirements for recognition of supervisory bodies and the arrangements to which additional requirements for recognition relate, the delegation of functions by the Secretary of State to new or existing bodies, supplementary provisions about delegation orders, approval of overseas qualifications for auditors, and disclosure of services provided by auditors and related remuneration. Second, the C(AICE)Act provides regulations for the appropriateness of the accounts and reports and contains the auditors` rights to information, statement in the directors` report as to disclosure of information to auditors, persons authorised to apply to a court in connection with defective accounts and disclosure of tax information by the Inland Revenue to facilitate an application for a declaration that the accounts are defective, the power to specify bodies who may issue reporting standards, grants to bodies concerned with accounting standards and a levy to pay the expenses of bodies concerned with accounting standards, and exemptions from liability. Third, the C(AICE) Act stipulates the requirements for company investigations, which contains details of the power to require documents and information, protection in relation to certain disclosures, the power to enter and remain on premises, and the failure to comply with certain requirements.

제주국제자유도시 추진기구에 대한 검토

송석언(Seok Eon Song) 중앙법학회 2002 中央法學 Vol.4 No.3

TRIPs협정과 우리 상표법의 지리적 표시 보호제도

송석언(Seok Eon Song) 중앙법학회 2008 中央法學 Vol.10 No.3

미국법상 주식의 내용에 관한 검토

송석언 ( Song Seok Eon ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 2016 法과 政策 Vol.22 No.3

주식의 내용이라고 함은 2011년 우리 개정상법(revised commercial law)상 종류주식(class of shares)의 내용과 상통하는 개념으로 이해할 수 있다. 우리 상법의 종류주식이란 소정의 권리에 관하여 특수한 내용을 부여한 주식을 말하는데, 이익배당에 관한 종류주식, 잔여재산의 분배에 관한 종류주식, 주주총회에서의 의결권행사에 관한 종류주식, 상환에 관한 종류주식 및 전환에 관한 종류주식을 인정하고 있다. 이는 주식의 권리의 내용이 다른 주식을 의미하는 것으로서 주주권의 내용이 다른 것을 의미하는 것이라고 할 수 있다(우리의 개정전상법에서는 `수종의 주식`이라고 하였으나, 2011년 개정상법에서는 `종류주식`이라는 용어로 표현하고 있다. 또한 `주식의 종류`라는 용어로 사용하는 조문도 있다). 우리 상법상 종류주식의 내용은 미국의 법제와 유사한 점이 많다. 미국의 경우에는 주식의 발행에 관하여 최소한도의 제한만을 하고 있어서 주식의 권리내용을 자유롭게 설계할 수 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 주식의 권리내용을 다양화하는 것은 주식의 금융상품성을 다양하게 하여 기업에게는 자금조달의 용이성,투자자에게는 폭넓은 선택 등으로 자본시장의 활성화를 도모할 수 있다고 한다. 그러나 다른 한편으로 이러한 자유로운 주식의 내용설계가 자칫 주식제도의 남용으로 이어질 수 있다는 우려의 목소리도 있다. 그리하여 이 논문에서는 미국 회사법과 판례를 살펴봄으로써 향후 우리 학계와 실무계에 시사하는 바를 살펴보고자 하였다. 미국의 회사법제를 살펴봄에 있어서는 미국의 여러 주법 중에서 가장 연구가 활발한 델라웨어주 일반회사법(Delaware general corporate law, Del)과 모범사업회사법(Model Business Corporation Act, MBCA)을 주된 고찰의 대상으로 하고, 그밖에 필요에 따라 증권거래위원회규정 및 다른 주의 법규도 함께 분석하였다. 그리고 관련내용은 ① 배당에 관한 내용,② 의결권에 관한 내 용, ③ 주식의 상환에 관한 내용, ④ 정관(articles of incorporation)에 의한 주식매수청구권(Right to Appraisal)의 배제 가능성 등으로 나누어 살펴 보았다. The content of stock can be understood as being equal to the concept of the description of the class of shares under Koreas revised commercial law of 2011. The reason for this is because the related content of dividend income, return of capital, voting rights, redeemable and convertible issues, etc. for the classes of shares under commercial law means that they are different stocks. There are many similarities between the content of classes of shares under commercial law and US legislation. In case of the USA, it is known that types of securities can be designed freely as there are only minimum limits on the issuance of securities. Thus, by examining US corporate law and case law, this paper examines suggestions for future Korean academic and practical circles. In examining US company law, the main consideration was given to the most actively studied among state laws of the Delaware General Corporation Law and the Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA). Studies were also made, as necessary, of the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other state laws. Furthermore, examination of the related content was divided into areas such as information on dividends, voting rights, redemptions, and appraisal rights under the articles of incorporation.

中國의 貿易障壁調査規則에 對한 硏究

송석언(Song Seok Eon) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.48

기업파산과 지배주주 등의 후순위화 법리

송석언(Seok Eon Song) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.4

This study examines the so-called "equitable subordination" principle of the United States which allows the court to have the power and authority to subordinate prior claims, including those of insiders such as controlling shareholders, on the assets of a bankrupt debtor company to the claims of junior claimants based on principals of equity. Until recently in Korea, when a company went bankrupt, direct forms of pursuing liabilities of its executives, especially when it was a small to mid sized and/or closed company, had been commonly occurred because they were subject not only to "executives` liabilities on third parties" as stipulated in the Commercial Law (Article 401, Clause 1) but also to the principle of "disregard of the corporate fiction -piercing the corporate veil. Indirect forms of, however, of holding company executives liable as practiced in the United States applying the "equitable subordination" principle had not been seen in Korea. By examining the United State`s legal system that has positively utilized "the principle of equitable subordination based on principals of equity," this study attempts at providing effective measures to protect company creditors. Part II of the study lists the rationale of and conditions for application of the equitable subordination principle. Part III analyzes related cases and theories. Part IV examines major theories of equitable subordination by elements. And more discusses its implications for Korea`s financial market, finally provides a few suggestions.

미국 회사법상 정관변경과 종류주주총회에 관한 검토

송석언 ( Song Seok Eon ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2017 法과 政策 Vol.23 No.2

정관변경과 종류주주총회(general meeting of any specific class of shareholders)에 관한 사항은 환언하면 주식내용의 변경에 관한 것이다. 주식내용의 변경에는 주주로서의 지위의 상실을 초래하는 주식의 강제취득도 포함한다. 그리하여 이글에서는 주식내용에 관한 전형적인 방법인 정관변경에 의한 방법뿐만이 아니라 주식의 상환에 관한 규정도 검토대상으로 포함하고 있다. 그리고 주주 간의 이해대립의 조정수단으로서 종류주주총회제도 및 주식매수청구권제도의 기능에 대하여도 기술하였다. 그 주요 내용은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 미국에서는 19세기부터 정관변경에 관하여는 기득권이론(vested rights doctrine)이 적용되었다. 그러나 1940년 Federal United Corp. 사건에 관한 델라웨어주 대법원판결 및 1967년 개정 델라웨어주일반회사법(Delaware General Corporation Law)에 의하여 기득권이론은 사실상 소멸되었다. 그 이후 각 주법(state law)과 모범회사법(Model Business Corporation Act, MBCA)이 오늘날의 모습을 취하고 있다. 둘째, 어떠한 경우에 종류주주의 승인결의를 거쳐야 하는지를 살펴보았다. 종류주식의 권리내용에 영향을 미치는 회사의 행위는 다음과 같이 3가지로 나눌수 있다. 즉, ① 종류주식의 권리내용에 관한 정관규정의 변경, ② 어떤 종류주식에 우선하는 권리내용을 갖는 종류주식의 창설 또는 그 우선권의 확대 및, ③ 합병 또는 주식교환에 의하여 발생하는 종류주식과 다른 증권과의 교환이다. 이 가운데 ①과 ②는 정관변경절차를 거쳐야 한다. 이 글에서는 먼저 정관변경절차에 있어서 종류주주총회의 결의에 관한 각 주의 법 규제에 대하여 살펴보았다. 그리고 합병 또는 주식교환 등에 있어서 종류주주총회의 결의에 관하여 기술하였다. 마지막으로 정관규정의 해석과 관련하여 종류주주총회결의를 거쳐야하는지의 여부가 쟁점이 되는 사안에서 법원이 취한 태도에 대하여도 살펴보았다. 셋째, 정관변경, 합병 또는 주식교환 등에 있어서도 종류주주에게 주식매수청구권(right to appraisal)인정되는지의 여부를 주요 주법과 모범회사법의 규정을 분석하여 보았다. Changes in the articles of association and general meeting of any specific class of shareholders means basically a change in share information. Changes in share information includes a loss of the status of the shareholder leading to compulsory acquisition of the shares. Thus this article includes a study on repayment for stock as well as the typical method for changing the articles of incorporation in relation to changing stock information. Also a description is provided of both claims for stock purchase and the general meeting of any specific class of shareholders as a means of alleviating any conflict of interest between shareholders. The main contents are as follows. First, in the USA the vested rights doctrine was applied beginning in the 19th century. However, the vested rights doctrine has basically been eliminated by the Delaware Supreme Court ruling in the 1940 Federal United Corp. case and the revised General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware of 1967. Since then, it has become today that the situation is shaped by each state law and the Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA) Second, we examined the cases that require a resolution of approval from the classes of shareholders. The acts of a company that can affect the contents related to classes of stock can be divided into three as follows. These are changes in the articles of incorporation i ① n relation to the right to information of different classes of stock, ② which class of shares has priority with regard to the creation and expansion of priority for the right to information of stock classes, and ③ the exchange of other securities and classes of stock in case of share exchanges or mergers. Among these, ① and ② require a change in the articles of incorporation. This article first examined the regulations of each law related to resolutions of the general meeting of any specific class of shareholders for changes in the articles of association. Then a description is provided for resolutions of the general meeting of any specific class of shareholders in case of mergers and share exchange. Finally, the study examined the attitude of the court for interpretation of the provisions of the articles of association and going through a resolution of the general meeting of any specific class of shareholders. Third, even in cases such as changes in the articles of incorporation, mergers, or share exchanges, an analysis was made on whether the appraisal rights for classes of shareholders were recognized under state law and the provisions of the Model Business Corporation Act.