독일(獨逸)의 항공(航空).우인정책(宇寅政策)

최준선,Choi, June-Sun 한국항공우주정책·법학회 1992 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.4 No.-

바르샤바협약상(協約上) Wilful Misconduct의 개념(槪念)

최준선,Choi, June-Sun 한국항공우주정책·법학회 1994 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.6 No.-

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

商業信用狀의 法的 性質論

崔埈璿(Choi, June-Sun) 전북대학교 법학연구소 1985 法學硏究 Vol.12 No.-

이중대표소송제도의 입법론에 대한 검토

최준선(Choi June-Sun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2006 성균관법학 Vol.18 No.3

  The 2006 revision draft of the Korean Commercial Code (KCC) introduces a double derivative action which is recognized in common law jurisdiction. A derivative action is an action brought by a shareholder on behalf of the corporation to redress harm to the corporation by fiduciaries. The KCC recognizes this kind of action to the minor shareholders who possess more than 1% of total outstanding shares. The KCC requires as a prerequisite of the action the so called "The Demand Requirement" which means that shareholders who wish to maintain a derivative action must attempt to secure corporate action through a demand to the board that it initiate the litigation. Only when the corporation rejected the shareholders" claim to initiate litigation or it is clear that a demand was futile, then the shareholders can directly initiate an action. However, the KCC does neither require "the contemporaneous ownership". In most jurisdictions, a derivative plaintiff must have been a shareholder at the time of the challenged transaction and must remain a shareholder pending the outcome of the litigation. This is the "contemporaneous ownership" rule.<BR>  In a double derivative action, shareholders of a parent corporation may sue on behalf of a subsidiary of the parent, despite their lack of direct ownership in the subsidiary. Like a regular derivative action, the corporation"s refusal to act on the claim itself is a prerequisite. The requirement for a double derivative differs however in that both the subsidiary and the parent must refuse to act before the shareholders can maintain an action.<BR>  There are pros and cons of the double derivative action. It was alleged that it could protect minor shareholders of parent corporation from harmful management of fiduciaries of subsidiary. However, the most business circles and corporations in Korea are opposed to introducing this kind of derivative action in the KCC on the ground that it will obviously shrink activities of corporations. This writer analysed the requirements of application of the double derivative action and weighed up the pros and cons of introducing this action in KCC. The writer concludes that the introducing the double derivative action in KCC is not desirable, because courts can use the test"s various equitable considerations to shape a decision on a case-by-case basis as the courts in common law jurisdiction do. No any jurisdiction has legislated this action in an express provision.

기업의 사회적 책임론

최준선(Choi June-Sun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.2

기업의 사회적 책임에 관한 1930년대부터 현재까지의 논의는 論者가 누구든 막론하고, (1) 기업의 사회적 책임은 대기업의 경우에만 문제삼고 있고, (2) 대기업을 제거하자는 논의가 아니라 대기업을 개선해 보려는 시도이며, (3) 이사와 임원들에게 주주 이외의 회사의 이해관계자들에 대한 새로운 의무를 부과하여 회사가 주주에 대하여서뿐만 아니라 더 널리 채권자?종업원?소비자?공급자?지역주민의 이익까지도 고려하여야 할, 사회에 대한 책임을 부담하도록 하여야 한다는 것 등으로 요약할 수 있다. 기업의 사회적 책임을 실천할 주체는 경영자(manager), 기업가(entpreneur), 이사(director), 임원(officer) 등을 포함한다. 이들 개념은 이 논문에서는 의미의 차이 없이 호환하여 사용한다. 기업의 사회적 책임에 관한 논의의 역사를 보면, 기업의 사회적 책임에 관한 논의의 기본 구조는 동일하였지만 시대에 따라 이 이론을 주장하는 이유와 근거는 달랐다. 기업의 사회적 책임은 고질적인 문제를 해결해 주는 새로운 해결책이 아니라(not a novel solution to an unchanging problem), 오히려 끊임없이 나타나는 새로운 문제점에 대한 항구적인 해결책(an unchanging solution to an ever-new problem)인 것이다. 기업이 지속가능한 장기이익을 확보하고, 기업과 사회의 조화를 위하여도 기업의 사회적 책임은 긍정되어야 한다. 이와 같이 기업은 일정한 사회적 책임을 부담하여야 한다는데 이론이 있을 수 없다. 이와 같은 기업의 사회적 책임은 본래 윤리적 도덕적 의무였을 뿐이다. 그러나 오늘날 기업이해관계단체법규(corporate constituency statutes)의 제정으로 이를 법적 의무로 보는 견해가 점점 늘어나고 있다. 그러나 이와 같은 기업의 사회적 책임은 기업의 공공성의 일환으로 도덕적으로 요구될 수는 있을지라도 회사법에서 이를 기업의 일반적인 의무와 책임으로 규정하고 그 위반에 대하여 이사나 기업에게 책임을 묻기는 어려울 것으로 보인다. 이에 대하여 이사의 충실의무를 정한 상법 제382조의 3의 규정을 기업의 사회적 책임을 인정한 실정법으로 간주하고, 본조에 위반하여 회사의 이해관계자인 주주, 채권자, 지역주민 등에게 손해를 입힌 경우에는 상법 제401조(제3자에 대한 책임)에 따라 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 보는 견해도 있으나, 이들 조문이 기업의 사회적 책임을 명문으로 인정한 상법상의 조문으로 보는 데는 찬성하기 어렵다. 한편 기업의 사회적 책임론을 회사법에 입법하는 문제에 대하여는 신중을 기하여야 한다고 본다. 물론 기업의 사회적 책임과 의무를 단순한 도덕적 의무로서 요구하는 것은 실효성 확보의 면에서 무의미할 수 있고 책임추궁도 불가능하기 때문에 이를 입법하여야 한다는 주장도 설득력이 있다. 그러나 기업의 사회적 책임을 명문으로 규정한다고 해도 책임의 주체와 내용이 불분명하고, 그 일반규정에 대한 실효성 확보가 어려우며, 그 운용과정에서 입법자의 의도와는 달리 경영자의 재량권을 지나치게 확대하여 주주의 이익을 해할 가능성이 크다. 사회적 책임을 위반하였다고 하여 어느 누가 기업이나 이사에게 책임을 추궁하거나 손해배상책임을 물을 수 있는지도 의문이다. 그리고 미국에서도 기업이해관계단체법규를 제정한 주가 30개 주나 되어, 미국에서는 이제 입법론에 반대하는 입장은 사실상 입지가 매우 좁아진 것은 사실이다. 그러나 미국의 회사법 중 가장 중요한 위치를 차지하는 델라웨어주 회사법을 비롯하여, 1990년 이후에는 새로이 입법을 하는 주가 많지 않음을 어떻게 평가하여야 할까? 요컨대 기업의 사회적 책임을 다할 수 있도록 회사의 경영자에게 일반공중의 이익을 위하여 회사의 이익을 다소 희생할 수 있는 재량권을 인정하는 것은 불가피하고 바람직한 것이다. 이는 회사의 이익추구를 위한 결정과 사회적 책임을 이행할 경영자의 재량권이 서로 분리될 수 없기 때문에 불가피한 것인 한편, 회사가 그가 소속된 지역사회에 대한 사회적 도덕적 의무를 다 할 수 있는 근거가 되기 때문에 바람직한것이다. 이것은 판례를 통하여, 그리고 기업 스스로 인식의 전환을 통하여 자발적이고 자율적인 노력에 의하여 달성되도록 하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 현재의 상황에서는 기업의 사회적 책임에 대한 입법까지는 필요없을 것으로 보며, 다만 기업 스스로 민주사회의 일원임을 자각하여 그 사명을 다하도록 하는 사회분위기의 조성이 필요하다고 본다. 기업이 영속적으로 사회에 존재하고 발전하기 위하여 기업으로 인하여 발생되는 사회문제를 스스로 해결하겠다는 의지를 가져야 한다. 이러한 의지를 가지고 소비자, 노동자, 지역주민 등에 발생하는 피해와 문제를 기업 스스로 해결해 줄때에만이 사회로부터 배척받는 기업이 아니라 사회로부터 환영받는 기업이 되어 Recently many people in business circle advocate ethic management. In other words, corporate social responsibility is recently more stressed than any other time in Korea. Many scandals broken out recently in Korean business circle may have brought these social atmosphere. However, as C.A. Harwell Wells said, "the corporate social responsibility is not a novel solution to an unchanging problem; quite the contrary, it is an unchanging solution to an ever-new problem." Whenever arises problems regarding corporations, corporate social responsibility was always the useful methode which could solve the problem. Before discuss the corporate social responsibility, we must understand two preposition. First, the corporation which has social responsibility is only big corporations. Second, discussing on corporate social responsibility is to reform corporate power or corporate governance, not eliminate the corporate itself. In this article, the writer discusses the circumstances that give rise the issue of corporate social responsibility. After that the debates early times and the following developments both in United States and in Korea were analysed. The current debates on corporate social responsibility was also introduced. The writer recognizes corporate social responsibility as a corporate ethic. However he hesitates it to be codified although many States in the United States of America has legislation on it as the so-called constituency statutes. The writer concludes that the business corporation should realize that it itself is an member of society and should do it's social responsibility voluntarily. On the other hand, research and survey on the corporate social responsibility should be conducted widely and there is need to establish theoretical doctrine in order to cope with various problems arising out of corporate social responsibility.

국내 항공운송법 제정안에 관한 고찰

최준선 ( June Sun Choi ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2008 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.23 No.2

The volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased rapidly in recent years. This trend will be even more noticeable as the high-tech service industry expands and the globalization progresses. In an effort to reflect and to cope with this trend, many conventions concerning international air transportation have been concluded. The Republic of Korea has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on September 20th, 2007 which became effective on December 29th 2007. However, Korea currently does not provide any private law on the liability of domestic air carrier, leaving the regulation wholly to the general conditions of carriage of private air lines. These general conditions of carriage, however, are not sufficient to regulate the liabilities of domestic air carriers, because they cannot be fully recognized as a legitimate source of law applicable in the court. This situation is inconvenient for both air carrier and their customers. Thus, the Ministry of Justice of Korea has decided to enact a law that will regulate domestic air transportation, namely, Domestic Carriage by Air Act, as a part of the Korean Commercial Code. So was composed a special committee for legislation of the Domestic Carriage by Air Act. This writer has led the committee as a chairman. The committee has held in total 10 meetings so far and has completed a draft bill for the part VI of the Korean Commercial Code, Air Carriage. The essentials of the draft are as follows: First, the establishment of Part VI in the Commercial Code. The Korean Commercial Code already includes a series of provisions on road transportation in part II and carriage by sea in part V. In addition to these rules regulating different types of transportation, the Domestic Carriage by Air Act will newly establish part VI to regulate air carriages. Eventually, the Commercial Code will provide an integrated legal system on the transportation industry. Second, the acceptance of the basic liability system which major international conventions, such as Montreal Convention of 1999 and Guadalajara Convention of 1961, have adopted. This is very important, because the law of air carriage is unified worldwide through various international conventions, making it necessary and significant for the new act to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of domestic air carriage. Third, the acceptance of Rome Convention system on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface. Fourth, the application of rules on domestic road carriage or carriage by sea mutatis mutandis with necessary modifications. This very point is the merit of inserting domestic air transportation law into the Commercial Code. By doing so, the number of articles can be reduced and the rules on air carriage can conform to that of road transportation and carriage by sea. The bill is expected to be passed by the parliament at the end of this year and is expected to be effective by end of July 2009.

항공운송증권

최준선 ( June Sun Choi ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 1995 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.7 No.-

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier`s liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier`s liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have been settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the transportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstantial. However

형성권으로서의 주식매수청구권과 백지보충권에 관한 고찰

최준선(June-sun Choi) 한국기업법학회 2009 企業法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

Gestaltungsrecht is a unique terminology of German jurisprudence. To Korean scholars, it is little known what the Gestaltungsrecht means. The Gestaltungsrecht is a relative and subjective right, through which a new right can be founded or an existing legal relationship can be altered. The Gestaltungsrecht can be realized by a unilateral Gestaltungserklarung (empfangsbedurftige Willenserklarung) or by a right to litigate, so-called Gestaltungsklagerechte. Appraisal right is the right of shareholders to demand a fair payment ofsecurities when undergoing a merger and acquisition. The contents of theappraisal rights provided in the Korean Commercial Code (the KCC)Article 374-2 can be summarized as follows: If any of the following matters are adopted at a general meeting ofshareholders of a company, any dissenting shareholders may exercise theright to demand the company to purchase their shares. (ⅰ) merger, (ⅱ) transfer of all or substantial part of the business of a company or acquisition of all or substantial part of business of another company, and (ⅲ) comprehensive transfer of shares issued by a company or exchange of such shares with shares in another company. According to majority opinion, the legal nature of appraisal right is Gestaltungsrecht. After the realization of appraisal right stipulated in Article 374-2, the sales contract between the company and shareholders is definitely concluded. The problem is whether sales contract on stocks can be formed even when the price of the stocks is not yet negotiated between the company and the shareholders. If the contract is deemed to be formed, the company will be obliged to pay the price of the stocks and the interests therefrom immediately after the realization of appraisal right. The present writer disagrees. Both parties will still have to negotiate the price of stocks and without determining of the price, the company will not be obliged to pay the price and interests. Another noteworthy issue regarding the Gestaltungsrecht is the Ausfullungsbefugnis des Blankowechsel. Many Korean scholars insist that this Befugnis is governed by extinctive prescription (Verjarung). However, this writer believes that this right is controlled by limitation (Ausschlussfrist).

韓國 法學專門大學院의 敎育課程의 方向

최준선(June-Sun Choi) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2006 성균관법학 Vol.18 No.2

주요국의 기업집단 소유지배구조에 대한 비교분석

최준선(June sun Choi) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.4

기업집단의 문제는 매우 다양하나, 필자는 첫째, 경제력 집중은 시장에서 독점적 지위를 남용하는 것도 아니고, 단순히 소수의 재벌에게 부가 편중되는 현상인데, 이것을 과연 규제할 필요가 있는가 하는 문제, 둘째, 기업을 지배하려면 반드시 그에 상응하는 주식을 소유하여야 하는가의 문제, 셋째, 대기업 그룹의 지위남용 규제 문제를 고찰하였다. 주요국의 기업집단 지배구조에 대한 비교분석에 관하여는 선행연구가 있으므로 필자는 위 세 가지 관점에서 선행연구를 재해석하고 기업집단규제에 대한 필자의 사견을 피력하였다. 한국 공정거래법 제3장은 경제력집중의 억제 라는 분명한 표현을 사용하고 있음에도 일부 학자들은 경제력집중억제가 아닌 경제력집중으로 인한 폐해를 방지하는 것이 목표라는 주장을 하기도 한다. 한국에서 기업집단법에 관한 독립된 법률을 제정하거나 회사법 내에 장이나 절을 두는 것이 타당하다는 주장도 있다. 그러나 현실적으로는 매우 어려운 일이고, 실익도 크지 않다. 일본에서처럼 기업집단법의 요소들을 회사법 내에 부분적으로 도입하는 시도가 타당해 보인다. 그 내용은 공정거래법에서 규제하고 있는 경제력집중규정의 전부폐지 내지 규제완화, 순환출자 및 지주회사체제로의 전환에 대한 자율권 보장, 회사법에서는 터널링과 프로핑 제거 논의 활성화 등이다. 특히 공정거래법상 기업집단에 대한 통제는 제거되어야 한다. 기업집단은 어떤 자본시장보다 효율적인 투자재원 배분기능을 갖고 있으며, 기업집단이 효율적인 노동시장이라는 점에 대하여 이의를 제기하는 자는 별로 없다. 반면, 기업집단은 경영권의 사적이익추구에 이용될 수 있는 고도의 위험을 내포하고 있어서, 소속 기업의 채권자, 소수주주 및 종업원들이 피해를 입을 가능성이 크다. 그러므로 필요한 것은 터널링과 프로핑에 대한 통제이다. 이 부분은 이해관계자 간의 이해충돌문제이므로 회사법에서 다루어야 하며, 현재 이미 많은 규정이 산발적으로나마 도입되고 있다. 회사법은 공정거래법의 많은 부분을 수용할 수 있는 방향으로 발전해 가야 한다. There are many various perspectives in viewing corporate groups. This writer discussed the corporation groups under three points of view, namely the general concentration of economic power, ownership- governance mechanism of the corporation groups and the abuse of the status of corporation in the market. There is also an argument that it would be reasonable to have a separate law on corporate groups or at least have a chapter or section in corporate law concerning this matter. There is no objection to the idea of regulating corporation groups by law. Several scholars insist that it is only reasonable to include a chapter or section covering corporation groups in the Korean commercial code. Realistically, however, this is very difficult and the benefits are not material, either. This is partly due to the difficulty of stipulating a comprehensive legal code that regulate all corporation groups due to the wide range of potential issues that might concern such corporate entities. It seems reasonable to adopt only partially into the existing corporate law some elements of corporation group law, as in the case of Japan. To be included would be a complete or partial deregulation of the general concentration rule, a guarantee of autonomy on circulatory investment and conversion to a holding company system, as well as tunneling and the removal of propping. In particular, the control on corporation group under the Fair Trade Act should be removed. Corporation groups have a more efficient resource allocation function than any other capital market, and there are rarely those who object to the idea of corporation groups offering an efficient labor market. Meanwhile, corporation groups carry a high risk of potentially being used for the private benefit of control, which in turn can causes damages to creditors of the company, minority shareholders and employees. However, corporation groups are, in most cases, a natural byproduct of pursuing economic efficiency or the result of a mandate given by the government as part of an industrial structural reform. What is needed is the control on tunneling and propping. This must be addressed by the corporate law as it is an issue of conflict of interest between the stakeholders. Many regulations are being adopted to address this issue, albeit in a scattered manner. Corporate law must progress in the direction of adopting the many parts of the Fair Trade Act.