이사의 선관의무와 충실의무의 법사학적 기원에 관한 고찰 = A Legal Study on Historical Origin of Corporate Directors’ Duty of Loyalty and Duty of Care

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In Korea, the 1998 amendment to the Korean Commercial Code introduced a catchall provision which is analogous to the director’s duty of loyalty in U.S. corporate law. Prior to the amendment, Article 382(2) of the Korean Commercial Code provided that the relationship between a corporation and its directors was to be governed by the provision of mandates in the Korean Civil Code. According to the mandates, mandatories are assigned the duty of care as a good manager, therefore, as mandatories,directors also have the duty to conduct the business of the corporation with reasonable care as a good manager.
Since 1998, there has been extensive theoretical debate over the significance of the catchall provision about duty of loyalty. As to whether the distinction between the duty of loyalty and duty of care as a good manager should be recognized under the Korean corporate law, two competing views have developed. Some scholars argues that the catchall provision is only one facet of the duty of care as a good manager,notwithstanding the fact that Article 382-3 is remarkably similar to the fiduciary duty of loyalty in Anglo-American law. On the other hand, there is an emerging view arguing that the catchall provision of Article 382-3 should be distinguished from the duty of care as a good manager. However, this theoretical debate seems to have overlooked the significance of the historical origin of the duties.
To begin with, this study traced back to bonus paterfamilias in Roman law to find the historical origin of duty of care as a good manager. Bonus paterfamilias means good or diligent father of family, and comprise the classical definition of the Civil law’s culpa levis in abstracto. Moreover,bonus paterfamilias and part of culpa levis in abstracto strays into common law language in the late nineteenth century, as a device to intensify the duty of care.
Meanwhile, the concept of fiduciary duty of loyalty originates from the law of trust, more specifically, the English Equity. Roman idea such as fideicommissum or fiducia may have helped to provide vocabulary for fiduciary itself. However, the prototype of fiduciary duty of loyalty begins with Keech v. Sandford(1726) which is the case of the Chancery Court.
Fiduciary duty of loyalty is typically described as : a fiduciary must avoid conflict fiduciary’s duty and his personal interest and must not derive any unauthorized profit from his fiduciary position. Fiduciary duty of loyalty’s strict characteristics explains the vulnerability of human nature which is likely to be swayed by personal interest rather than by duty as a fiduciary.
As a result, the corporate directors’ duty of care as a good manager, the duty to conduct the business judgment with the reasonable care has substantially different nature and historical origin in comparison with the duty of loyalty as a duty to avoid to conflict of interest and duty.
Therefore, having confirmed a basic difference of the historical origins and the nature between the duty of care as a good manager and the duty of loyalty, there is an opportunity to highlight one particular aspect of the duty to avoid conflict of interest and duty as a fiduciary duty of loyalty.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 손주찬, "｢상법(상)｣제15보정판" 박영사 2005

2 양명조, "회사법개론" 법문사 2007

3 정찬형, "회사법강의제3판" 박영사 2003

4 이철송, "회사법강의 제17판" 박영사 2009

5 홍복기, "회사법강의" 법문사 2005

6 안택식, "회사법 해설 법률지식 -개정2판-" 청림출판 2000

7 최준선, "회사법 제4판" 삼영사 2009

8 정동윤, "회사법" 법문사 1989

9 Sarah Worthington, "형평법" 소화 2009

10 명순구, "프랑스 민법전" 법문사 2004

11 이병태, "주식회사의 이사회제도-이사의 지위와 책임을 중심으로" 법원사 1986

12 이기수, "신회사법론, 제6판" 박영사 2008

13 최기원, "신회사법론 제13대정판" 박영사 2009

14 Frederic Maitland, "신탁과 법인의 역사" 세창출판사 2008

15 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2008

16 박기령, "수임자의무(Fiduciary Duty)에 대한 영미법의 해석론 비교연구" 법학연구소 13 (13): 57-91, 2009

17 국회 법제사법위원회, "상법중 개정법률안 심사보고서" 1998

18 정동윤, "상법(상) 제4판" 법문사 2009

19 Max Kaser, "로마법제사" 법원사 1998

20 현승종, "로마법" 법문사 1999

21 유승민, "기업투명성 제고 및 기업지배구조의 선진화 방안" 한국개발연구원 1997

22 鄭種休, "韓國民法典の比較法的硏究" 創文社 1989

23 심영, "英國 會社法 改正의 主要 內容과 그 示唆點" 중앙법학회 9 (9): 601-623, 2007

24 廣中俊雄, "民法典の百年" 有斐閣 1998

25 內田 貴, "民法 II : 債權總論, 擔保物權" 東京大學 出判會 2005

26 內田 貴, "民法 II : 債權各論" 東京大學 出判會 2007

27 水本 浩, "日本民法學史 各論" 有信社 1997

28 정종휴, "日本民法典의 編纂" 한국법사학회 (36) : 101-152, 2007

29 Maurizio Lupoi, "Trust and Confidence" 125 : 253-,

30 Robert Pearce, "The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations" Oxford University Press 2006

31 Reinhard Zimmermann, "The Law of Obligations" Oxford University Press 1994

32 Peter Birks, "The Content of Fiduciary Obligation" 34 : 7-,

33 Andrew Borkowski, "Textbook on Roman Law" Oxford University Press 2005

34 Joshua Getzler, "Rumford Market and the Genesis of Fiduciary Obligations, In Mapping the Law : Essay in Memory of Peter Birks, Andrew Burrows" Oxford University Press 2006

35 Tara Halfman, "Landownership and the Origins of Fiduciary Duty" 41 : 651-,

36 최기원, "IMF의 극복을 위한 상법개정방향(하)" 법률신문사 1998

37 Len Sealy, "Fiduciary Relationship" 69 : 1962

38 Tamar Frankel, "Fiduciary Law" 71 : 795-,

39 Sarah Worthington, "Fiduciaries : When is Self-Denial Obligatory" 58 : 3-, 1999

40 George Fletcher, "Comparative Law as a Subversive Discipline" 46 : 683-,

41 Katherine Spaht, "Co-Ownership of Former Community Property" 56 : 677-,