판례회두 : 제3편 보험(849면) ; 보험자의 보험약관명시,설명의무의 범위, (대법원 2003.8.22. 선고, 2003다27054 판결) (원심: 서울고법 2003.4.23. 선고 2002나25800 판결), 피보험자의 서면동의 없는 생명보험계약의 효력, (대법원 2003.7.22. 선고, 203다24451 판결) (원심: 서울고법 2003.4.22. 선고 2002나20621 판결), 피보험자의 직무,직종의 변경과 보험금액의 감액, (대법원 2003

강대섭 ( Kang Dae Seob ) 한국상사판례학회 2003 상사판례연구 Vol.15 No.-

증권거래법 판례의 변화와 전망 -자본시장법의 제정과 관련하여-

강대섭 ( Dae Seob Kang ) 한국상사판례학회 2010 상사판례연구 Vol.23 No.1

판례회고(判例回顧) : 2010년 증권거래법 판례의 회고와 전망

강대섭 ( Dae Seob Kang ) 한국상사판례학회 2010 상사판례연구 Vol.23 No.4

From Dec. 2009 to Nov. 2010, there were several cases by the Supreme Court relating to the traditional issues in securities regulation. They are about civil liabilities resulting from an annual report containing an untrue statement or omitting a material fact, insider trading, and antifraud provision. And the validity of compensation for losses contracted between individuals was treated. Among these cases, I will review the validity of compensation for losses and some points about insider trading. Old Securities Exchange Act provided that securities company, and its director and employees shall not solicitate the investment by means of the promise of compensation for losses. Is the promise valid and enforceable? Does the securities company be able to claim to return the profits? Generally such promise is invalid. But the case ruled that when individuals promised to compensate for losses in investments, the contract is valid. In the insider trading, the questions of who is subject to the trading constraints of the prohibition and what is the material inside information have been ones of the most interesting aspects. The Act provided that the insider or tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain. In the hightech and speed society, it is difficult to determine who is tippee or sub-tippee. The case ruled that when someone joined the unlawful insider trading with the tippee, he or she should be responsible for the trading. Another case ruled that the non-public information should be concrete enough to be material. In this paper, the ratio decidendi in these cases will be reviewed and commented.

판례회고 : 2014년 자본시장법 판례의 회고와 전망

강대섭 ( Dae Seob Kang ) 한국상사판례학회 2015 상사판례연구 Vol.28 No.1

From late 2013 to late 2014, many cases in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act(hereinafter “the Act”) and the repealed Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act have been produced. Some judgements of the Supreme Court``s cases are as follows : the principle of suitability and the duty of explain does not apply to a quasi-investment advisory business; members of an employee stock ownership association have not a preferential right to the allocation of bonds of warrants; use of DMA in connection with ELW trading does not come under the utilizing an unfair means. The Act provides that an investor may make a claim for redemption of collective investment securities at any time. In the event that a collective investment business entity of an investment trust, etc. is unable to redeem collective investment securities on the day prescribed by the collective investment agreement, owing to impossibility of disposing of assets that belong to the collective investment property or any other cause prescribed by Presidential Decree, it may postpone the redemption of the collective investment securities. The Supreme Court has clarified the definition of where it is anticipated that accepting a claim for redemption in a large volume are likely to undermine equality in dealing with investors prescribed by Presidential Decree as a ground for the postponement of redemption.

위험변경증가 통지의무 위반에 관한 해석상의 문제와 계약해지권

강대섭 ( Dae Seob Kang ) 한국상사판례학회 2012 상사판례연구 Vol.25 No.3

According to the art. 652 of the Korean Commercial Code, when the policyholder or the insured becomes aware of the fact that the possibility of the occurrence of the insured events has been substantially altered or increased during the cover period, he shall give notice thereof to the insurer without delay; If he has neglected to do so, the insurer may terminate the contract within one month after it becomes aware of the fact. And the article 653 provides that when the risks has been substantially altered or increased by intention or gross negligence of the policyholder and etc., the insurer may request an increase in the premium or terminate the contract within one month. General insurance clauses has the similar provisions about the notice of the increase of risks and the termination of contract. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided about the alteration or increase of risks. Especially it is worthy of note in manifesting the starting point of one month, namely, the exclusion period within which the insurer may terminate the contract. After examining and analyzing the provisions about the alteration or increase of risks, this paper will especially review the precedent of the Supreme Court about the starting point of the period. Finally, it will be suggested that the provisions about the alteration or increase of risks will be revised.

공정공시에 관한 연구

강대섭 ( Dae Seob Kang ) 한국상사판례학회 2005 상사판례연구 Vol.18 No.1

The Securities Exchange Act prohibits trading the securities on the basis of material nonpublic information. Selective disclosure is that a corporation or its employee selectively disclosure material information to analysts and institutional investors before making the same disclosures to individual investors and the general public. This practice diminishes investor confidence in the capital markets. Regulation Fair Disclosure is intended to prohibit the selective disclosure. It requires a listed corporation to disseminate all material nonpublic information publicly. Selective disclosure is similar to a tipping and insider trading. Tipping is the selective disclosure of material nonpublic information for trading or other personal purposes. This article aims to survey the background for adopting, major contents and impact of Regulation Fair Discolsure. First of all, I will discuss the SEC`s motivation for adopting the Regulation in USA. Then I will analyzes the major contents and issues of our Regulation in comparison to USA and assesses the impact of the Regulation on markets and analyst. Finally I concludes the Regulation has some positive effects, but is necessary to be reshaped or reinterpreted.

內部情報의 提供과 情報受領者의 去來의 規制

강대섭(Kang Dae-Seob) 한국증권법학회 2001 증권법연구 Vol.2 No.2

보험금청구권의 상실 조항의 효력

강대섭(Kang Dae-Seob) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학연구 Vol.48 No.1

보험제도는 내재하는 사행적 요소, 정보의 비대칭, 도덕적 위험 및 보험가입자의 역 선택으로 보험가입자에 의해 악용될 소지가 많다. 이를 방지하기 위하여 보험약관에는 보험금청구권의 상실 조화을 두고 있다. 만약 보험가입자가 하나의 보험계약으로 별개의 보험목적물에 대하여 보험계약을 체결한 경우에 보험가입자가 보험목적물에 관한 보험금청구를 하면서 관련서류에 허위 기재를 하였을 때, 피보험자는 허위의 보험금청구와 관련이 없는 보험목적물에 대한 보험금청구권까지도 상실하는가 하는 문제가 있다. 보험금청구권의 상실을 보험가입자의 보험사고 발생시 일정한 의무위반에 대한 제재로 이해하더라도 그 제재는 위반의 정도와 균형을 이루어야 하며, 보험에서 보험가입자가 합리적으로 기대하는 바를 해치지 않도록 보험약관의 조항을 해석할 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 보험약관의 해석원칙에 비추어 보험금청구권의 효력범위를 어떻게 이해하는 것이 보험자의 이익과 보험가입자의 이익을 조화시킬 것인가 하는 점을 고찰한다. 이에 관한 대법원의 판결을 분석하면서 보험금청구권의 상실 조항의 의의, 취지, 효력범위 등을 살펴보고 문제점을 개선하는 방안을 모색한다. It is said that insurance is a contract uberrimae fidei. If the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided or surrendered by the other party. The duty of the insured of act with the utmost good faith is necessary on the bargain of the policy, and survives beyond the effecting of the policy. The Commercial Code has lots of provisions to prevent the moral hazard and the fraud by the assured. And many insurance policies include provisions which specifically address the problems of fraud in connection with claims. This type of provision has provided the basis for a successful defense by insurers when an insured willfully concealed information about an insured loss or submitted incorrect information in an insurance claim. But when this provision is allowed to be applied without any restriction, the resonable expectation of the assured will be infringed unfairly. Are the fraudulent claim clauses in insurance policies valid? And is necessary any interpretation to limit the scope of defences to fraudulent claims? In this article, I will explain the content and basis of the fraudulent claims clause, review and analyse some cases addressing the validity of the clause, and add some comments. I come to a conclusion : the meaning of fraud shall be defined clearly, its scope of validity shall be proportionable to the offences, and shall have the basis of justification on the statute.

발행인등의 손해배상책임과 상당한 주의의 면책항변

강대섭(Kang Dae-Seob) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2009 법학연구 Vol.49 No.2

증권거래법상 발행인 등이 유가증권신고서 등의 허위기재 등에 대하여 배상책임을 면하기 위해서는 상당한 주의를 다하였음에도 불구하고 허위기재 등을 알 수 없었음을 증명하여야 하기 때문에 단순히 그 부실표시를 알지 못하였다거나 상당한 주의를 다하지 못하였다면 책임을 면할 수 없다. 또한 상당한 주의를 다하였다고 해도 허위기재 등을 알 수 없었을 것임을 증명하는 것만으로 책임을 면할 수 없다. 그런데 발행인 등이 상당한 주의의 면책항변을 하기 위해서는 어느 정도의 주의를 기울여야 하는지에 관하여 의문이 있다. 대법원은 면책을 주장하는 자가 자신의 지위와 특성에 따라 합리적으로 기대되는 조사를 한 후, 문제의 사항이 진실하다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 근거가 있고 실제로 이를 믿었음을 증명하여야 한다는 취지의 종전 판결을 이번에도 다시 반복하여 확인하였다. 이로써 증권거래법상의 '상당한 주의’의 면책항변이 미국의 증권법과 동일하게 '합리적인 조사와 합리적인 근거’를 요구하는 것으로 해석될 수 있는 계기가 마련되었다고 본다. 또한 판례에서는 자세하게 논의되고 있지 아니하지만, 전문가사항에 대하여서는 비전문가는 그 기재내용을 신뢰할 수 있고, 따라서 그 부분이 진실 · 정확하지 않다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 근거도 없고 실제로 이를 믿지 않았음을 증명한 때에는 책임을 면할 수 있다고 할 것이다. A registered offering under the Securities Exchange Act requires that a registration statement and prospectus be utilized. This aims to enable prospective purchasers to make informed investment decision based upon the disclosure of adequate and truthful information regarding the issuer, its associated persons, and offering. This policy is frustrated when a registration statement and prospectus contain materially false or misleading informations. Section 14 of the Act provides that investors under certain conditions may recover their losses if they purchase securities pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus containing a material misrepresentation or non-disclosure. But a number of defenses are allowed for parties subject to section 14 liability. The defenses available to the defendants are purchaser's knowledge of the misstatement or omission, lack of causation, due diligence and expiration of period of the limitations. The due diligence defense is as follow: a defendant must show that he(or she) exercised due diligence and he didn't know of the untruth or omission. This provisions extend to the secondary market. This article addresses the due diligence defense principally. I make the overview of the due diligence defense, and discuss the due diligence standard. Additionally after analyzing a Supreme Court's case, I will study the due diligence defense in the comparative method. The ultimate resolution reached is that parties subject to the liability is required to show that after reasonable investigation, he or she had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe the registration statement and prospectus to be accurate and perfect.

이사가 다른 회사의 지배주주가 된 경우 경업금지의무 위반 여부 : 대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고, 2011다57869 판결을 중심으로

강대섭(Kang, Dae Seob) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학연구 Vol.55 No.1

경업금지의무와 관련하여서는 ‘회사의 영업부류에 속한 거래’ 또는 ‘동종영업을 목적으로 하는 회사’의 의미와 범위, 이사회의 승인시기와 방법, 경업금지약정의 효력 등이 문제된다. 최근 대법원 판례는 이사의 경업의무의 범위와 관련하여, 이사가 경업 대상회사의 지배주주가 되어 그 회사의 의사결정과 업무집행에 관여할 수 있게 되는 경우에도 경업금지의무를 부담한다는 점을 명백히 하면서, 영업지역의 異同뿐만 아니라 회사구체적 사안에 따라 경업관계의 성립 여부를 판단할 것을 요구한 판결을 하였다. 이 점에 관한 최초의 법원 판단이라고 생각한다. 해당 회사의 이사가 경업관계에 있는 다른 회사의 지배주주가 되어 그 회사의 의사결정과 업무집행에 관여할 수 있게 되는 경우에는 이사가 알게 된 회사의 영업기밀, 거래처정보 등을 그 다른 회사의 이익을 위하여 부당하게 이용할 위험이 있으므로 이를 예방적․형식적으로 금지할 필요가 있다. 다만 그 경업관계 여부를 판단하는 때에는 두 회사의 업종, 영업지역뿐만 아니라 구제적 사정을 상세하게 검토하여 이를 판단해야 한다. 이사가 다른 회사의 지배주주가 되는 경우에도 회사에 대해 경업금지의무를 부담한다는 법원의 판지는 정당하다. Directors in the corporation owe his corporation a fiduciary duty of loyalty. This duty prohibits the fiduciaries from taking advantage of their beneficiaries by means of fraudulent or unfair transactions. Section 397, subsection 1 of Korean Commercial Code(hersinafter “the Code”) provides that no director shall, without the approval of the board of directors, effectuate for his own account or for the account of a third person any transaction which falls within the class of businesses of the company or become a member with unlimited liability or a director of any other company whose business purposes are the same as those of the company. This provision aims to protect the corporate interest under the situation of conflicts of interest. Recently the Korean Supreme Court has given a decision that the director, controlling other company as its shareholder, have the duty of prohibition of competitive business with the corporation. The Court has accepted the defendant"s argument that the other company has not been in the relation of competitive business. In this paper I will analyze and estimate the recent decision of the Court. For this purpose, I will review the meaning of the competitive business and the standard for the judgement. And I will look into the japanese case law about the in-fact controlling person. In conclusion I agree with the Court"s decision. But I think the reason for the judgement should be reappraised.