진술 및 보장 조항의 새로운 쟁점 = Recent Issues of Representations and Warranties Clause

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Breaches of representations and warranties clause have increased in recent years, occasionally leading to litigation involving claims for indemnification.
However, currently court precedents involving indemnification for breach of representations and warranties are mostly those of lower courts and still in the process of appeal. Therefore, how the Supreme Court of Korea will rule on specific issues related to representations and warranties and breaches thereof is being paid close attention by the legal community.
The main subject of interest in connection with recent court precedents is how representations and warranties and indemnification liability arising from breaches thereof will be theorized within the realms of Korean domestic law. Furthermore, determination of the monetary amount of the indemnification liability for breach of representations and warranties is also a topic being hotly debated.
This article first introduces the current discussions within Korea on the functions and legal characteristics of representations and warranties clause,then based on such discussions, reviews positions taken by academic theories and court precedents in regards to issues related to indemnification liability for breach of representations and warranties, in particular,recognition of indemnification liability even for purchasers who negligently made purchases or made purchases despite the knowledge of breach of representations and warranties. In addition, this article introduces methods of assessing amounts of indemnification liability currently being considered in Korea and relevant issues thereof.
when practice or court precedents on issues of breach of representations and warranties have not been firmly established, it would be premature to reach conclusion at the current stage. However, the tendency of the recent court decisions have been to respect the parties’ certain understandings, it appears likely that practice of drafting agreements based on such tendency will be established. But additional discussions should be made as more precedents regarding representations and warranties are established.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 천경훈, "진술보장 조항의 한국법상 의미" 서울대학교금융법센터 (35) : 2009

2 김홍기, "미국형 및 유럽형 M&A 규제제도와 우리나라의 M&A 입법에 대한 시사점" 한국상사판례학회 20 (20): 37-76, 2007

3 岡內眞哉, "表明保證違反による補償請求に際して，買主の 重過失は抗弁となるか" 2006

4 金田繁, "表明保證條項をめぐる實務上の諸問題(上)一東京地判平成 18. 1. 17. を 題材として" (1771) : 2006

5 靑山大樹, "英米型契約の日本法的解釋に關する覺書(下)- ｢前提條件｣, ｢表明保證｣, ｢誓約｣ とは何か" 2008

6 Neil Sinclair, "Warranties and Indemnities on Share Sales" Longman 1992

7 American Bar Association, "Model Stock Purchase Agreement with Commentary" 1995

8 김태진, "M&A계약에서의 진술 및 보장 조항 및 그 위반"

9 허영만, "M&A계약과 진술보장 조항" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (20) : 2006

10 송종준, "M&A거래계약의 구조와 법적 의의-미국의 계약실무를 중심으로-, In 21세기 상사법의 전개: 정동윤 화갑기념논문집" 법문사 1999

11 Joseph, W. Bartlett, "Equity Finance: Venture Capital, Buyouts, Restructurings and Reorganizations 10.3 - Representations and Warranties" 10 (10): 216-, 2008

12 Jane Freund, "Anatomy of a Merger" Law Journal Press 230-, 1975