상법상 이사의 충실의무에 관한 고찰 = A Study on Director`s Duty of Loyalty in the Commercial Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 1998, the revised Commercial Act introduced the loyalty duty of the Director. Here are two points of view are facing each other, because one regards the loyalty duty as a specified duty of card and the other regards it as a totally different thing from the duty of care. Major opinion takes a position to support the homogeneous doctrine which was the major opinion and precedents before the revision of the Commercial Act in 1998. Deciding whether a director breaches the duties required, it should be reviewed whether the scopes of loyalty duty and duty of care are identically same. It is necessary to analyze the legislative purpose of providing the loyalty duty and the mechanism of deciding whether the breach occurs. This thesis studies the Loyalty Duty in company laws of the UK, USA, Germany, and Japan. There are two views of the loyalty duty in the UK. One regards the nature of the Loyalty Duty as a negative duty (proscriptive duty), and the other regards the duty as a positive duty (prescriptive duty). Both of views do not deny its origin, evaluation, and the effect of breach. It was practically necessary to distinguish the Loyalty duty from the duty of care in the United States. Because the nature and the legal consideration of the duties are different. In Germany, Aktiengesetz (Company Act) does not provide explicitly the loyalty duty of the director though academic opinions and precedents recognized it. Japan experiences conflicts between homogeneous doctrine and heterogenous doctrine on the relationship of loyalty duties and duty of care. Japanese major opinion and precedents follow the homogeneous doctrine, however, recently heterogeneous doctrine is emerging and a few low level court decisions which are different from the conventional precedents are coming out. Anglo-American judiciary looks that the origin of loyalty duty is different from that of care duty, and is building precedents on loyalty duty to overcome the limit of duty of care which is not sufficient to require the responsibility of directors. If the Anglo-American legal principles are the basis of our loyalty duty, it is reasonable to differentiate it from the duty of care. It is necessary to change the view of loyalty duty, if there are limitations on duty of care for requiring the responsibility of directors, and that is why the legislator provided explicitly the duty of loyalty.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정동윤, "회사법" 박영사 2001

2 김병연, "한국 상법상 이사의 의무와 책임추궁" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 93-130, 2009

3 양만식, "일본 회사법상 이사의 의무와 책임추궁" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 43-91, 2009

4 김병연, "이사의 충실의무와 영미법상 신인의무(Fiduciary duty)" 한국상사법학회 24 (24): 61-82, 2005

5 박기령, "이사의 선관의무와 충실의무의 법사학적 기원에 관한 고찰" 한국상사법학회 30 (30): 477-506, 2011

6 김태진, "이사의 감시의무에 대한 판례의 고찰" 한국상사법학회 29 (29): 109-165, 2010

7 이기욱, "영국회사법상 이사의 수임자의무" 한국법정책학회 11 (11): 167-191, 2011

8 최기원, "신회사법론" 2005

9 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2011

10 손주찬, "상법(상)" 박영사 2004

11 조지현, "독일 주식법상 이사의 의무와 책임추궁" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 9-41, 2009

12 大隅健一郞, "新會社法槪說" 有斐閣 2010

13 田中誠二, "三全訂會社法詳論" 勁草書房 1993

14 Fleischer, "Wettbewerbs- und Betätgungswerbote für Vorstandsmitgleider im Aktienrecht" AG 2005

15 Andrew D. Appleby, "Three's Company: Stone v. Ritter and the Improper Characterization of Good Faith in the Fiduciary Duty "Triad"" 62 : 470-471, 2009

16 Melvin A. Eisenberg, "The Duty of Good Faith in Corporate Law" 31 : 11-12, 2006

17 Stephen M. Bainbridge, "The Convergence of Good Faith and Oversight" 55 : 585-, 2008

18 Davies, Paul L., "Gower and Davies' Principles of Modern Company Law(8th ed.)" Sweet & Maxwell 2008

19 Clark W. Furlow, "Good Faith, Fiduciary Duties, and The Business Judgement Rule in Delaware" 2009 : 1066-, 2009

20 DTI, "Explanatory Notes to the Companies Act" 2006

21 Charles W. Murdock, "Corporate Governance - The Role of Special Litigation Committee" 68 : 79-, 1993