http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
정용상 釜山外國語大學校 比較法硏究所 2005 比較法學 Vol.16 No.-
As Korea has been faced with international competition in the area of the legal services, the sector of the Korean legal services has experienced three major changes. First, large international accounting firms, the so-called Big 5, have made an attempt to enter the Korean legal market. Second, the size of the law firms of the US and the EU has been large and they have expanded their business abroad. Third, the WTO and other international organizations have pushed Korea for the deregulation of the sector of legal services. The current law of Korea prevents foreign law firms from establishing their branches in Korea. In a degree, China has opened its legal market as foreign investment and trade in China has increased. China has been a member of the WTO since 11 December, 2001. China has made preparations for the entire opening of legal services market. In this context, China has made gradual efforts to improve legal environment, legal education, and legal system, so China plans to strengthen competitiveness of legal services in the near future. It is imperative that our legal education system should be first reformed. In order to get over international competition in the area of legal services, it is necessary to improve the quality of legal services and the sector of legal services must be more and more specialized. Furthermore, it is necessary to continue to make efforts to respond to the gradually emerging changes of the Korean legal market. 1n order to study the actual effects of the legal market reform, this article analyzes the ongoing reform of legal services market in China. Also, this article compares and contrasts historical reforms of legal market experienced in China. 1n view of this comparative analysis, this article suggests a strategy to reform successfully and to avoid making errors caused by a rapid and abrupt change in our legal system.
鄭容相 건국대학교 1988 論文集 Vol.27 No.1
Any two or more company can be united into one company by the law. The merger System which is the most perfect form of enterprise concentration has been used for accomplishing various economic purpose. There are various legal problems in company merger, especially in the Korean Commerical law because there are so many weak points in it. It is desirable that there should be reasonable and adaptable regulations that can be put into practical use. In Korean Commercial Code, it is only the invalidity of company merger by stockholder's opposition but as it is impossible in practically, it should he admired appraisal right of shareholder as America. In this paper, I should like to describe these problems as following according to the comparative study of law based on legislative point of views. Ⅰ. Introduction. Ⅱ. A resolution of the general meeting of stockholder's for recognition company merger. Ⅲ. Responsibility of a Director and an Auditor. Ⅳ. The claim of the merger information. Ⅴ. The appraisal right of dissenters. Ⅵ. Conclusion.
鄭容相 건국대학교 1989 論文集 Vol.29 No.2
Defects in resolutions of general meeting of shareholders are occasioned in cases where there are some defects in the procedure of calling and in the manner of adopting or in the substance of the resolution. When defects exist in resolutions of general meeting of shareholders, a legal remedy is necessary for the protection of shareholders and any third persons affected by such defective resolutions. Therefore, Korean Commercial Code provides four kinds of suit about defects in resolutions of general meeting of shareholders. First, article 376 of the Commercial Code provides a suit seeking for cancellation in a certain resolution of general meeting of shareholders. This suit is required for defects in the form of the resolution. Effect of adjudication in this suit is not retroactive. Second, article 380 of the Commercial Code provides suits seeking for ascertainment of nullity and ascertainment of non-existence in a resolution. A suit for ascertainment of nullity in a resolution is required for defects in the substance of the resolution. About this suit there are two theories, suit for formation theory and suit for confirmation theory, conflicting with each other. A suit for ascertainment of nonexistence in a resulution is required for defects on the ground that no meeting is held, that no resolution are adopted in general meeting of shareholders. Revising Commercial Code provides this suits that is recognized in academic theories and precedent cases. On this suit there were arguments whether it is a suit for confirmation under the Code of Civil Procedure, whether article 380 of the Commercial Code shall apply. Third, article 381 of the Commercial Code provides a suit seeking for cancellation or modification in a resolution. This suit is required for a resolution passed without the vote of a person who has an unlawful conflict of interest. There are two conflicting theories in these kinds of suit, suit for cancellation of a resolution and confirmation of nullity in a resolution and confirmation of non-existence in a resolution. One is individual and separate suits, and the other is monism that says a special litigation demanding "declaration of nullity of effect in a certain resolution."