메콩경제권 국가들의 기업법에 관한 비교법적 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Greater Mekong Subregion(GMS) is a development project set by the Asian Development Bank in 1992. GMS’s countries consist of six countries near the Mekong River basin, namely Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and the Yunnan Province of China. With assistance from the Asian Development Bank, the six countries entered into a program of subregional economic cooperation, designed to enhance economic relations among the countries. In particularly China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are the so-called transition countries. In the late 1980s, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar abandoned their centrally-planned, socialist models and began the transition to more open and market-oriented capitalist economies.

This paper introduces the framework of the Enterprise Law comparing with the Korean law in some points. Especially, this paper focuses on the company’s establishment, dissolution, corporate governance and financing provisions. This paper is organized as follows. To begin with, chapter 2 introduces the legal systems of the GMS’s countries and examines each country’s Enterprise law with respect to legislative background, structure, characteristics and types of businesses. Chapter 3 compares establishment and dissolution of company between Korea and GMS’s countries. Chapter 4 analytically compares the corporate organs such as general meeting of shareholders, board of directors and auditor between Korea and GMS’s countries. Chapter 5 compares financing schemes about the issuance of new shares and debentures. Finally, Chapter 6 briefly summarizes this study and proposes legal issues to consider when it is better for companies to invest in GMS’s companies.

China, Vietnam and Thailand have recently revised the Enterprise law. It significantly improved the process for forming a new company. The Enterprise Law creates more transparent procedures for private businesses, significantly simplifies regulations and procedures to start businesses, and moves from discretionary licensing to automatic registration, by way of the implementation of a negative list of restricted or prohibited activities. However, the ambiguity in licensing and regulatory procedures impedes the daily work and growth opportunities of enterprises. Furthermore, the continued state domination of the national economy limits the opportunities for robust private enterprise. Therefore, more comparative studies on the enterprise law of advanced industrial nations including Korea can be essential for the development of enterprise law in GMS’s countries.

Concerning corporate governance in the Enterprise Law of GMS‘s countries, the introduction of Shareholder proposal right, Representative suit, Cumulative voting and Outside director system can be construed as positive amendment in legislation. These institutions could be great contribution to corporate financing and consequently this will improve corporate governance and promote honest and transparent corporate management. Besides the introduction of electronic voting will help shareholders to demonstrate their voting rights.

But the proportion of share ownership which is required to decide the right of the minority shareholders is still a little bit high in terms of protecting investors. So like Korea’s example, the requirement of being the minority shareholders should be simple and it should be easier for the minority shareholders to assert their rights, in order to protect the minority shareholders and enhance the surveillance against business management. However, actually the Enterprise Law of only some countries of the GMS stipulates these regulations. And even if they are stipulated in the Enterprise Law, the legal effectiveness of these regulations can’t be assured. For example, the Enterprise Law of China and Taiwan clearly stipulates that they have outside director system but the independence of outside director is not fully satisfied. Likewise, the function of outside director system has no advantages unless the independence of outside director is not guaranteed. Appointing obligatorily at least one accountant profession in the process of audit can be highly regarded as the improved one. But the other institutional devices for assuring the effectiveness of audit system aren't included. To make things better, the practical checks and balance in corporate management are needed. Also as a gadget to increase the transparent business managing and prevent controlling stockholder from exercising so much power, auditing committee should be included in the Enterprise Law of GMS’s countries.

To make a continuous progress for a firm, it is necessary that additional corporate finance should be fully provided so as to meet efficiently continuous demands. In addition, under the condition that shareholders are responsible for limited parts of a firm’s debt, which means that they are practically not responsible for the creditor of that company, a limited-liability company needs a lot of funds to ensure their credibility through securing the company assets. For this reason in Korea whenever they revise their Enterprise Law, they have made sure of the stability and the various tools for financing. Like the Korea’s example of revising the Enterprise Law in 2011, those countries among GMS have to increase the availability of financing and provide an advantage for establishing a firm. And not only a minimum stock capital system but also a introduction of no-par stock is needed to expand investment. It is also demanded to make more specific regulations for the class shares to assure the availability and stability of financing. The authorized capital system selected by the most countries among GMS has trouble in financing efficiently when it is needed. Therefore it is worth reviewing that granting the convenience and efficiency in the company’s establishment and funding by introducing the eclectic authorized capital system which is adopted in Korea.

Those countries among GMS have continuously legislated and revised Enterprise Law toward a progressive direction. But it is still uncertain to make sure the effectiveness of Enterprise Law because of each country’s political and social issues. In fact, there are not much of lawsuits or precedents which are based on their enterprise Law. Therefore, the most important task for Enterprise Law of GMS’s countries is to increase the effectiveness of Enterprise Law and help GMS’s countries establish and manage forms. As I mention earlier, regulations of Korea Enterprise Law could be good examples to modify Enterprise Law of GMS’s countries.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 4
• 1. 연구의 범위 4
• 2. 연구의 방법 5
• 제2장 메콩경제권 국가의 법계와 기업법 개관 7
• 제1절 메콩경제권 국가의 법계 7
• 1. 법계의 전개 7
• 2. 메콩경제권 국가의 법계 형성 8
• 제2절 중국기업법 12
• 1. 입법경위 12
• 2. 구성 및 특징 16
• 3. 기업의 형태 20
• 제3절 베트남기업법 23
• 1. 입법경위 23
• 2. 구성 및 특징 29
• 3. 기업의 형태 31
• 제4절 태국민상법과 주식회사법 33
• 1. 입법경위 33
• 2. 구성 및 특징 35
• 3. 기업의 형태 38
• 제5절 라오스기업법 41
• 1. 입법경위 41
• 2. 구성 및 특징 44
• 3. 기업의 형태 49
• 제6절 캄보디아기업법 51
• 1. 입법경위 51
• 2. 구성 및 특징 53
• 3. 기업의 형태 55
• 제7절 미얀마기업법 57
• 1. 입법경위 57
• 2. 구성 및 특징 60
• 3. 기업의 형태 61
• 제8절 한국상법과의 비교 62
• 제3장 회사의 설립과 해산 66
• 제1절 설립의 일반원칙 66
• 제2절 회사의 설립 67
• 1. 설립의 주체 67
• 2. 설립의 절차 74
• 1) 상호의 선정 74
• 2) 정관의 작성 80
• 3) 출자의 이행 86
• 4) 법인격 취득시기 93
• 3. 설립관여자의 책임 102
• 제3절 회사의 해산 106
• 1. 해산의 의의 106
• 2. 해산사유 및 절차 108
• 3. 해산의 효과 117
• 제4절 소 결-설립과 해산에 관한 규정의 문제점과 제안 121
• 제4장 기업지배구조 124
• 제1절 개 관 124
• 제2절 의사결정기관 126
• 1. 주주총회(사원총회)의 의의와 권한 126
• 2. 주주총회(사원총회)의 소집 131
• 1) 소집권자 131
• 2) 소집절차 138
• 3) 주주제안권 142
• 3. 주주총회(사원총회)의 의결권 행사방법 146
• 1) 의결권의 대리행사 146
• 2) 서면에 의한 의결권 행사 149
• 4. 주주총회(사원총회)의 결의요건 151
• 제3절 업무집행기관 157
• 1. 이사회 157
• 1) 구성과 권한 157
• 2) 소 집 164
• 3) 결 의 167
• 2. 이 사 170
• 1) 이사의 지위와 자격 170
• 2) 집중투표제 175
• 3）사외이사제도 178
• 4) 이사의 의무와 책임 180
• 5) 주주대표소송 188
• 3. 대표이사 192
• 제4절 감사기관 199
• 1. 감사회(감사)의 구성 199
• 2. 감사회(감사)의 권한 및 의무 205
• 제5절 소 결-기업지배구조 관련규정상 과제와 제안 211
• 제5장 회사의 자금조달제도 214
• 제1절 기업법과 회사자본제도 214
• 1. 메콩경제권 국가의 자본제도 214
• 2. 한국의 자본제도와의 비교 218
• 제2절 신주발행 219
• 1. 중 국 219
• 2. 베트남 220
• 3. 태 국 222
• 4. 라오스 224
• 5. 캄보디아 224
• 6. 한국상법과의 비교법적 검토 225
• 1) 무액면주식의 허용 225
• 2) 종류주식의 다양화 227
• 3) 신주인수권제도 230
• 제3절 사채발행 230
• 1. 중 국 230
• 2. 베트남 232
• 3. 태 국 232
• 4. 라오스 233
• 5. 캄보디아 233
• 6. 한국상법과의 비교 233
• 제4절 소 결-자금조달제도 규정의 개선 가능성 234
• 제6장 결 론-경제발전과 교류확대를 위한 규범개선의 제언 239
• 參考文獻 243
• Abstract 255