위험배분의 관점에서 본 사정변경의 원칙

권영준 한국민사법학회 2010 民事法學 Vol.51 No.-

The doctrine of change of circumstances is, after all, a doctrinal vehicle that allocates unallocated risks of the contract. Therefore, it is highly pertinent to view this doctrine from the perspective of risk-allocation. According to this perspective, the requirements for the application of the doctrine concerns the issue of pre-allocation of risks between parties,whereas the legal consequences of it concerns the issue of post-allocation of risks between parties. If the risk arising out of the changed circumstances has already been allocated within the framework of the contract, there is no need for this doctrine to step in. However, if it has not been internalized within the framework of the contract, now this doctrine steps in paternalistically and decides how it can allocate unforeseen risks. Meanwhile, whether or not the modification of the contract could be deemed an adequate tool for this post-allocation process has been controversial in the academia. Various arguments centering around this doctrine vividly reflect the tension between autonomy and paternalism in the realm of contract law. Although it would be difficult to come up with clear-cut rules, the perspective of risk-allocation as well as the balanced view on the values of autonomy and paternalism in contract law might be highly meaningful in reaching justifiable outcomes in each cases.

미국의 근로자재해보상제도의 보상책임구조와 업무상 재해의 요건 : Requirements of Work Connected Injury

김소영 한국노동법학회 2004 노동법학 Vol.0 No.18

In this article, I present the current regime of American workers' compensation law with respect to the requirement of work - connected injury, and suggest the direction of construction which could extent the coverage of workers' compensation in modem work connected injury cases of Korea. In any country, there have been difficulties in fixing and defining the boundaries of coverage. In the U.S., coverage problems have been solved by the approach toward the risk inquiry developing various doctrines aimed at defining the scope of the risk, e.g., the "positional risk" doctrine. The positional risk doctrine is the most liberal of the scope of the risk theories, because the only inquiry under a positional risk theory is whether an injury arises out of the employment placed if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed employee in the position where he or she was injured: One's employment was responsible for one's being at the time and place where an injury occurred. Even the most neutral of risks which are the cause of a great deal of conflict and confusion can be included. Also, a liberal construction should be given to the definitions of employer and employees because of the objectives of workers' compensation and the need to make coverage as expansive as possible. The modern tendency is to find employment when the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer, and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service. This "relative nature of the work" test, not only is it more modern than the "right to control test," it is believed to be more realistic test in terms of the objectives of the workers' compensation law. The purpose of the workers' compensation law as set forth in its title, is to provide financial and medical benefits to the victims of work connected injuries and promote the welfare of the employees. Moreover, the rapidity of technical development and invironmental change in current society place workers in a greater exposure to a risk. In light of the objectives and policies of workers' Compensation a much broader approach should be taken in the construction of requirements of work connected injury. Therefore, with respect to the requirements of work connected injury I propose a direction of construction which consists of adopting "positional risk" doctrine and "relative nature of the work" test in order to extent the coverage.

M&A 실무상 중대한 부정적인 변경조항(MAC)에 의한 계약 해제에 관한 연구

김지안(Ji-ahn KIM) 한국기업법학회 2020 企業法硏究 Vol.34 No.3

본 논문에서는 M&A 해제 근거로서의 MAC 조항에 대한 최근 미국의 사례와 해석론을 소개하고, Covid-19 사태가 MAC 조항에 의한 계약해제사유가 될 수 있을지를 검토하였다. 우선 MAC 의 의미에 대해, 과거에는 MAC의 예시 조항과 예외 조항으로 나누어 설명하였지만, 이에 더하여 최근 미국에서는 예외 조항이 배제되는 경우로 ‘불균형 영향 조항(disproportionality exclusion)’을 따로 정하는 경향이 있다. 즉, 회사(및 자회사)에 특유한 경영 리스크는 MAC 사유로 두어 매도인이 위험을 부담하게 하고 시스템 리스크나 산업 리스크 등 해당 산업계 전반이 영향을 받을 위험은 매수인에게 부담시키는 것이 일반적이었다면, 최근에는 시스템 리스크나 산업 리스크라 하더라도 해당 리스크가 매도인에게 특히 더 부정적인 영향을 준 경우(소위 ‘불균형 영향’)는 경영 리스크에 준하여 매도인이 그 위험을 부담한다고 규정하는 것이다. 비록 사정변경으로 인한 위험을 어떻게 분배할 것인지는 사적자치에 따라 당사자들이 결정한 바대로 해석해야 하지만, 적어도 가장 효율적인 위험분배 방식에 대해서는 고민해볼 필요가 있다. 한편 미국에서는 MAC 조항에 따른 계약해제를 인정하지 않았던 전례를 깨고, 2018년 Akorn 판결에서 MAC 조항에 따른 계약 해제를 인정하였다. Akorn 판결은 계약 체결 이후 대상회사의 기업가치가 급락하기 시작하였다는 점, 계약 체결 이후에서야 매도인이 대상회사의 규제 위반 사실을 알게 되었는데 매도인이 계약 종결을 위해 노력을 다했다는 점 등이 고려 요소가 되었다. 한편 2019년 Channel Medsystems 판결에서도 계약 체결 이후 규제 위반이 발견되었지만, 규제 위반에도 불구하고 대상회사의 기업가치는 큰 변동이 없었던 점, 대상회사가 규제 위반을 인지한 즉시 매수인과 규제당국에 알리고 이를 시정하기 위한 노력을 기울였으며 그 복구에 드는 비용이 크지 않은 점 등이 이전 사건과 차별점으로 지적되었고, Akron 판결과 달리 MAC 조항에 따른 계약 해제를 인정하지 않았다. 이 두 사건을 통해, ‘중대하게 부정적인 영향’의 의미란 합리적인 매수인의 관점에서 볼 때 질적 또는 양적으로 볼 때 중대한 영향력이 상당 기간 지속되는 것을 의미한다는 점, 그리고 MAC의 정의 조항에 더하여, 매도인과 매수인이 계약 종결을 위해 얼마나 성실하게 노력하였는지 등이 MAC에 해당 여부에 영향을 미쳤음을 알 수 있다. 이러한 MAC 조항의 해석론은 최근 Covid-19로 인한 불확실성을 해소하는데 도움을 줄 수 있다. 본 논문은 관련 사례로 2020년 SoftBank社의 WeWork社 지분인수 건이나 1-800-Flower.com社와 Bed Bath & Beyond社간의 기업인수건 등을 소개하였는바, 이들 사례는 비록 법원 판단으로 종결되진 않았지만 MAC의 해석 및 계약서 작성에 있어 몇 가지 시사점을 준다. Covid-19로 인한 불확실성은 단순히 팬데믹이라는 이유로 매수인에게 그 모든 위험을 전가하기보다는, 매도인이 해당 리스크를 운용하는데 있어 어느 만큼의 경영 능력을 보여줬는지를 판단할 필요가 있는바, 이는 앞서 살펴보았던 ‘불균형 영향 조항’을 둠으로써 보다 명확해진다. 또한 불가항력적인 사태로 인하여 거래 불확실성이 증폭되었다 하더라도, 거래 당사자들은 계약 종결을 위하여 최선의 노력을 다해야 한다는 점이 강조된다. This study introduces recent US cases and interpretations of the MAC clause as the basis for M&A termination. First of all, in the past, the meaning of MAC was explained by dividing it into base definition clause and exception clause, but in recent years, there is a tendency to add ‘disproportionality exclusion’ clause. In other words, management risks peculiar to the company (and its subsidiaries) are allocated to the seller as MAC, while the overall impact of the industry, such as system risk and industrial risk, has generally been allocated to the buyer. In addition, if the system risk has a particularly adversarial effect on the seller (so-called ’disproportionality exclusion’), this means that the seller bears the risk in accordance with the management risk. Although how to allocate the risks arising from changes in circumstances should be interpreted as determined by the parties according to private autonomy, it is necessary to consider the most effective risk allocation method. Meanwhile, for the first time, the Akorn case in 2018 permitted merger agreement termination under the MAC clause. The Akorn case was considered that the corporate value of the target company began to decline sharply after the contract was signed, and that the seller learned that the target company’s regulations were violated only after the contract was signed, but the seller made every effort to close the contract. Meanwhile, in the Channel Medsystems case in 2019, regulatory violations were found after the signing of the contract, but the company’s corporate value did not change significantly despite the regulatory violation. As soon as the target company recognized the regulatory violation, it was notified to the buyer and the regulatory authorities and corrected. It was pointed out as a difference from the previous case that the effort was made, and the cost of its restoration was not high. Throughout these two events, the meaning of ’materially adversarial change’ means that a significant effect, qualitatively or quantitatively, from the longer-term perspective of a reasonable acquiror’s point of view, lasts in a durationally-significant manner, and, in addition to the MAC’s definitions, it can be seen that the fact that the buyer’s efforts to close the contract influenced the interpretation of MAC. The interpretation of these MAC clauses can help to resolve the uncertainty caused by the recent Covid-19. For example, the uncertainty caused by Covid-19 might be regulated through the disproportionality exclusion, judged as to how well the seller has shown his effort in managing the risk, rather than putting the risk on the buyer simply because it is a pandemic.

도로소음으로 인한 손해배상청구에서 토지이용의 선ㆍ후 관계에 따른 관련당사자들의 민사책임의 양상 고찰

박태현(Park Tae Hyun) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2008 환경법과 정책 Vol.1 No.-

For the Claims for damages or injunctions filed on the basis of environmental damage the answer to the question of determination of its unlawfulness depends on whether it exceeds the level of acceptability or not. Priority of time when the land use in question took place can be mentioned as one of the factors in light of which environmental damage would be determined to be above or within the endurable degree. The fact that the victims had lived before environmental damage occurred is in favor of the victims in the judgement of whether it is more than the level of acceptability or not. But reversely, it is being disputed that the fact that the victims knew or could have known of environmental pollution before they reside will be able to put the victims at a distinct disadvantage. This is the question of the doctrine of coming to the nuisance(referred as “the doctrine” below). Tort Law of United States deals with it in the chapter of 'Assumption of Risk’ and 'Contributory Negligence'. The supreme court of florida estimated in Lawrence v. Eastren Airlines, INC as follows: the doctrine is out of place in modern society where people often have no real choices as to whether or not they will reside in an area adulterated by air pollution. In my opinion it is reasonable to conclude that the fact that the plaintiff has acquired or improved his land after a nuisance interfering with it has come into existence is not in itself sufficient to bar his action, but it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the nuisance is actionable. Therefore The fact that the plaintiff has lived after a highway already used is not in itself sufficient to bar his action nuisance so that 'Korea Expreshway Corporlf su' is liable to the d after o plaintiff's mental health caused by a road- thed noise provided that the degree of the d aftercroshed a hicceptable level. It is reasonable for the fact noise provie facto be considered as a factor favoring the def faant in determining of how muoshthe def faant pay for rec far a fteplaintiff's damages as well.

영국법의 최대선의의무 논의 동향과 우리법에의 시사점

한창희 한국금융법학회 2008 金融法硏究 Vol.5 No.1

Korean Commercial Law draft bill art. 638 (2) provides “The parties of insurance contract should be based on the doctrine of utmost good faith in concluding the insurance contract, exercising the rights, and performing the duties.” This article comes from the English Insurance Act art. 17 which provides “A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the either party.” But utmost good faith doctrine in English Law is the notion of the angloamerican legal system which greatly differs from Korean one. And this article writes that the utmost good faith doctrine is similar to the doctrine of the trust and good faith which is provided in the Korean Civil Law art. 2 ②“The exercise of rights and the performance of duties shall be in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith.”And it proposes the deletion from the draft or the change of the clause adapted to continental legal system. And English academics have deeply reviewed the cardinal doctrine of insurance law such as insurable interest, misrepresentation, insurance intermediaries, and proposes the amendment of insurance contract law in viewpoint of consumer’s protection, its modernization. This article studies fraudulent claims, duty of disclosure, aggravation of the risks, and asserts to accept the generally accepted matters about them in the amendment of Korean Insurance Law. Korean Commercial Law draft bill art. 638 (2) provides “The parties of insurance contract should be based on the doctrine of utmost good faith in concluding the insurance contract, exercising the rights, and performing the duties.” This article comes from the English Insurance Act art. 17 which provides “A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the either party.” But utmost good faith doctrine in English Law is the notion of the angloamerican legal system which greatly differs from Korean one. And this article writes that the utmost good faith doctrine is similar to the doctrine of the trust and good faith which is provided in the Korean Civil Law art. 2 ②“The exercise of rights and the performance of duties shall be in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith.”And it proposes the deletion from the draft or the change of the clause adapted to continental legal system. And English academics have deeply reviewed the cardinal doctrine of insurance law such as insurable interest, misrepresentation, insurance intermediaries, and proposes the amendment of insurance contract law in viewpoint of consumer’s protection, its modernization. This article studies fraudulent claims, duty of disclosure, aggravation of the risks, and asserts to accept the generally accepted matters about them in the amendment of Korean Insurance Law.

영국법의 최대선의의무 논의 동향과 우리법에의 시사점

한창희 ( Chang Hi Han ) 한국금융법학회 2008 金融法硏究 Vol.5 No.1

Korean Commercial Law draft bill art. 638 (2) provides "The parties of insurance contract should be based on the doctrine of utmost good faith in concluding the insurance contract, exercising the rights, and performing the duties." This article comes from the English Insurance Act art. 17 which provides "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the either party." But utmost good faith doctrine in English Law is the notion of the angloamerican legal system which greatly differs from Korean one. And this article writes that the utmost good faith doctrine is similar to the doctrine of the trust and good faith which is provided in the Korean Civil Law art. 2 ②"The exercise of rights and the performance of duties shall be in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith."And it proposes the deletion from the draft or the change of the clause adapted to continental legal system. And English academics have deeply reviewed the cardinal doctrine of insurance law such as insurable interest, misrepresentation, insurance intermediaries, and Proposes the amendment of insurance contract law in viewpoint of consumer`s protection, its modernization. This article studies fraudulent claims, duty of disclosure, aggravation of the risks, and asserts to accept the generally accepted matters about them in the amendment of Korean Insurance Law.

계약은 얼마나 좌절될 수 있는가? - 사정변경의 원칙에 대한 새로운 패러다임 제시 -

가정준 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2024 외법논집 Vol.48 No.1

영미법에서 ‘계약목적의 좌절’은 책임없는 사유를 원인으로 한 이행불능 등의 위험 분배와 깊이 연관되어 발전했으며, 우리 민법에서는 신의성실 원칙을 기반으로 발전했다. 두 제도의 공통 요건은 계약 당사자의 귀책 사유 없이 계약체결 시 예상할 수 없었던 사건의 발생이다. 이러한 유사성에도 불구하고, 대륙법과 영미법이 서로 다른 관점에서 접근하는 이유는 계약체결 후 예기치 않은 사건으로 인해 계약을 해제/해지하는 것을 대륙법은 선호하지 않기 때문이다. 대륙법에서는 중대한 사정변경으로인해 계약 유지가 어려울 때 계약을 수정하여 유지하려는 경향이 있으며, 이는 ‘계약은 지켜져야 한다(pacta sunt servanda)’라는 원칙의 반영일 수 있다. 반면, 영미법에서는 사정변경을 이행불능과 같은위험 분배의 관점에서 바라보는데 그 이유는 사정변경의 원칙을 이행불능이라는 역사적 배경을 가지고 있기 때문이다. ‘사정변경의 원칙’을 영미법상 시각으로 바라보고 그 시각을 소개하는 이유는 법의원리에 대한 다양한 모습을 고찰하려고 하기 때문이다. 본 논문은 ‘사정변경의 원칙’에 대한 보다 근원적인 고찰을 통해 우리 민법에서 논의를 보다 다양하고 풍성하게 하려는 목적으로 한다. The doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law, which developed in closely connection with the distribution of risks such as impossibility of performance, contrasts with continental law’s principle of ‘change of circumstances’, which evolved based on the principle of good faith. The requirements for both the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law and the principle of ‘change of circumstances’ in continental law commonly include the occurrence of an event unforeseen by the contracting parties at the time of contract formation, without fault on their part. Despite their very similar content, the different starting points stem from the civil law’s reluctance to terminate a contract entirely due to unforeseen events occurring after its effective formation. In civil law, the tendency to maintain or modify the contract in situations where it becomes difficult to uphold due to significant changes in circumstances, rather than terminating it, can be seen as an unconscious adherence to the notion that ‘contracts must be honored’ or ‘pacta sunt servanda’. The perspective in common law that views the principle of change of circumstances similar to faultless impossibility of performance is largely historical. These differing perspectives on the same phenomenon demonstrate the diverse interpretations and development of legal principles. Through this, the purpose of this paper is to provide an opportunity to newly view the principle of change of circumstances from a broader perspective.

적법행위에 대한 국가책임 이론의 정립을 향하여

金大淳(Dae-Soon KIM) 대한국제법학회 2003 國際法學會論叢 Vol.48 No.1

이른바 창조된 위험의 이론에 따르면 국가에게 고의나 과실이 없을 뿐만 아니라 국가가 수행하는 문제의 활동이 국제법에 의하여 금지되지 아니한 合法的인 활동이라 하더라도 그것이 高度로 위험한 활동인 경우에는 당해 가해국이 그 결과에 대해 절대적으로 책임을 져야 한다고 한다. 이같은 이론의 형성에 즈음하여, 2001년 8월 ILC는 “위험한 활동에서 야기되는 國境間 손해의 방지에 관한 규정초안"(draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities)을 최종 채택하여 이를 UN총회에 제출하였다. 제목에서 보는 것처럼 이 초안은 liability 측면은 다루지 않았다. ILC는 이 주제가 방지와 그 구제책 兩者 모두를 다루어야 하는 것이지만, 먼저 ‘방지’(prevention)를 다루기로 하고 ‘liability’ 측면은 나중으로 미루었던 것이다. ‘방지’ 부분의 초안을 완료함에 따라 ILC는 '2002년부터 이 주제의 남은 문제를 연구, 검토하는 작업에 들어갔다. prevention을 포함한 international liability의 목표 내지 특징은 문제의 활동이 위험하다는 이유로 금지시키는데 있는게 아니라, 관련국들, 즉 기원국과 피영향국 사이에 이익의 형평한 균형을 가져오는 것이다. 초안은 그 구성과 내용에 있어 1997년의 UN國際水路協約을 많이 참조한 것으로 보이므로 필요한 경우 특히 이것과 비교를 해 보는 것이 필요하다. 그리고 초안이 주로 국경간 환경침해의 방지를 염두에 두고 작성된 것이라는 점에서, 필요하면 국제환경법의 기본헌장인 1972년의 스톡홀름선언과 1992년의 리우선언에서 천명된 환경관련 원칙과 연계하여 고찰하는 것이 좋을 것이다. According to the doctrine of created risk, a state might be absolutely liable for the consequences caused by its transboundary hazardous or ultra-hazardous activities even if they are not prohibited by international law and could be lawful as such. This doctrine is on the way to formation and codification by the International Law Commission of the United Nations: in 2001 the Commission adopted and submitted to the General Assembly of the UN for its possible codification the "draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities". This draft, however, did not address the core and final issue, i.e. the 'liability' which might be caused by such harm: as is shown in its title, it only deals with the 'prevention' of transboundary harm from hazardous activities. That is why in 2002 the UN General Assembly requested the Commission to now go into the examination of its liability-related aspects. This article is limited to surveying the above-mentioned 2001 ILC draft articles, based upon some groupings of them made arbitrarily by the author. What should be first kept in mind is that the international liability for the trans boundary hazardous harm, including its prevention, is aimed at not so much the prohibition of the activities concerned as the equitable balancing of interests between states concerned. And the scope of the ILC draft articles is very limited: it applies only to "activities, not prohibited by international law which involve a risk of causing significant transboundary harm through their physical consequences, and planned or carried out in the territory or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of a State". Now is the time for the ILC to find or make out the principles for regulating the international and civil liability for such harm, -more often than not, together with the appropriate compensation for the innocent victims.

土地去來許可區域 內의 土地收用과 收用補償金에 대한 買受人의 權利

정상현(鄭相鉉, Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.1

In general, the Korean Supreme Court affirms that a buyer has the right of claim on the substitutional compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation. Such a decision is recognized by the assumption that the sales contract is valid. But in this case, the object of sales contract is the land in the Area of Transaction by Permission. In Korea, for the restraint of speculative trade of real estate in particular area, Article 118 of Program and Utilization for National Land Development Act provides that one who shall buy or sell the land in particular area must acquire the permission of government. It also provides that the contract without such permission should be ineffective. The general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article on the basis of the Doctrine of Floating Void.1)Under this doctrine, a party could not demand to the other party the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. If the permission is granted, the contract shall be valid definitely. Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court does not recognize the buyer's right of claim on the compensation money based on expropriation. But I think that such attitudes of judicial precedents should be criticized in comparison with prior two decisions of the Supreme Court which the contract without permission should be ineffective and the buyer has a right of claim on the substitutional compensation money without legal sources in the expropriation. The following explains in detail. The first, the Supreme Court decides that the contract without permission in particular area should be ineffective, but it also decides that the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission as legal obligations.2)That is to say, it affirms that the parties of contract can not refuse the performance of cooperating obligation3)and the one party must pay for damages to the other party on the basis of non-performance of cooperating obligation.4)Moreover it decides that, as unjust enrichment, the one party cannot demand the repayment of the earnest money which he had payed to the other party on the time of contract.5)And it also decides that the permission of transaction is not the "permission" of trade prohibited by law but the "authorization" toward the effect of contract.6) However the Doctrine of Floating Void created by the Supreme Court cannot bar effectively any speculative trades, and moreover it is a theoretical repugnance. Because, while the Doctrine of Floating Void by the Supreme Court has the assumption which the contract without permission is null and void in particular area, the Supreme Court recognizes that the parties of contract have the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission, the refusal of repayment of the earnest money as unjust enrichment, and the regard the "permission" as the "authorization" on the basis of the validity of contract. Therefore it is appropriate view that the permission for transaction in special area should be the special condition for the transfer of property. I think that the contract without permission has a general validity if it meets the general qualifications, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the general validity of contract. Also I think that the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contracting parties, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission. The second, the Supreme Court decides that the buyer has the right of claim on the compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation.7)About the origin of the decision, the Supreme Court also decides that there is no reason to deny the buyer's right, even if the Korean Civil Code does not provide the right. But, for grant a legal right to th

이사의 적극적 감시활동 : Marchand v. Barnhill - 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019)을 중심으로 Directors active oversight role

남현숙(Nam, Hyun Sook),신용훈(Shin, Yong Hoon) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2021 성균관법학 Vol.33 No.4

이사는 이사회의 구성원으로서 회사의 업무집행에 관한 것을 결의하고 직무권한을 행사함에 있어서 선량한 관리자로서의 역할을 다하여야 한다. 또한 이사는 이사회의 일원으로 대표이사와 이사의 직무집행을 감시할 수 있다. 이사의 감시의무는 실정법상 개념은 아니나, 판례는 이사의 감시의무를 인정하고, 이를 위반할 경우 회사에 대한 손해배상책임까지 인정하고 있다. 최근 미국 델라웨어주 대법원에서는 이사의 감시, 감독 기능과 관련하여 눈에 띄는 판결을 내놓았다. 이는 이후 판결에도 영향을 주어 강화된 이사의 감시의무의 기준점이 되고 있다. 최근 국내 법원에서 담합사건과 관련하여 이사의 감시의무에 대하여 기존보다 강한 책임을 요구하는 판결이 나왔고, 이 또한 일련의 델라웨어주 판결 흐름과 무관하지 않아 보인다. 본고에서는 대상 델라웨어주 판결을 비롯하여 이후의 판결에 대하여 살피고자 한다. 이는 국내에서도 이사의 감시 의무 및 책임과 관련하여 중요한 지침이 될 수 있을 것이라고 생각한다. As members of the board of directors, the corporate directors have to fulfil their roles with good faith in making decisions, execution of the company s duties and exercising their authorities. They can also monitor the CEO s and other directors performances. The oversight duty in the U.S. corporate law comes from a fiduciary duty. About 25 years ago, Delaware supreme court imposed a fiduciary duty on a board of directors to supervise or oversee a company s compliance systems. Recently, Delaware supreme court developed directors oversight duty through Marchand v. Barnhill. This case s standards maintained in Clovis case(In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation), and it will be expected to develop consistently in the future. In Korea, Supreme Court and Seoul High Court ruled against directors for their oversight duties(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da222368, Seoul High Court Decision 2020Na2034989). They also seem to reflect Delaware cases, so the analysis for related cases in this article will be able to give some help for establishing guidelines or standards of companies compliance systems and directors duty of oversight.