부당지원행위의 규제목적과 적용범위

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 한국상사판례학회 2006 상사판례연구 Vol.19 No.4

[판례회고] : 2015년 상법총칙,상행위법 판례의 동향과 분석

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 한국상사판례학회 2016 상사판례연구 Vol.29 No.1

본 논문은 2015년 대법원이 상법 총칙편과 상행위편 규정을 적용한 판례들을 분석하는 것을 주된 내용으로 한다. 더불어 민사소송 본안사건의 95%가 1심 판결로 종결되는 현실을 반영하여 각급법원 판결공보에 수록된 하급심 판례 가운데 2개를 함께 살펴보았다. 2015년에도 관련 판례의 수가 상당히 적었으며, 더욱이 대부분의 판례가 사안이 간단하거나 기존의 판시사항을 그대로 따라고 있어서 심도있는 평석의 대상으로 삼기에는 어려움이 있었다. 그런 가운데 대법원 판례 두 개와 하급심 판례의 판시사항은 상당히 의미를 가진 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 첫 번째 판례는 영업양도 사례이다. 이 판례에서는 주목해야 할 것은 첫째, 양도인의 경업금지배제의 묵시적 약정을 인정할 수 있는 근거에 대한 판시사항이다. 판례는 일부 영업의 양도와 기존 상호를 2년간 사용할 수 있는 약정을 근거로 하여 경업금지를 배제하는 묵시적 약정이 있었다고 보고 있다. 비록 사안의 성격상 묵시적 약정을 인정하는 정황사실이 풍부한 것은 아니지만 당사자의 영업양도 목적을 적극적으로 고려한 합리적인 판단으로 생각한다. 둘째, 경업금지의무의 지역적 범위와 관련하여 규정의 문구에 얽매이지 않고 양수인이 영업을 양수한 목적과 규정의 취지를 실현할 수 있도록 목적론적 해석을 한 점이다. 이에 따라 비록 영업양도의 대상인 공장이 소재한 행정구역에 구애받지 않고 통상적인 영업활동이 이루어진 전국을 경업금지지역으로 판단한 것은 상당히 획기적이며 진일보한 판결이라고 평가할 수 있다. 이에 따라 IT기술과 운송기술의 발달에 따라 대부분의 업종이 전국영업을 영위하고 있는 현실에 비추어 향후 이에 대해서는 입법적인 대안을 고민해야 할 것으로 생각된다. 두 번째 판례는 상인의 목적물검사 및 하자통지의무를 규정한 상법 제69조 제1항이 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구에는 적용되지 않는다고 한 사례이다. 본래 상법상의 매수인의 목적물검사 및 하자통지의무 규정은 민법의 하자담보책임에 대한 특칙으로서 매도인 보호를 위한 규정으로 이해하고 있다. 그런데 대상판결은 이 규정을 적용범위를 하자담보책임으로 한정한 바, 매도인 보호를 위한 특칙으로서의 의미를 상당부분 상실한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 그밖에 하급심 판례로서 새마을금고의 회원에 대한 신용사업에 대하여 상행위성을 인정하고 상법의 적용을 인정한 것은 획기적인 판례로 평가할 수 있다. 비록 대법원이 새마을금고의 상인성을 부인하였지만, 현재 새마을금고의 회원에 대한 대출사업이 다른 제2금융기관의 신용사업과 확연히 구별되는 점이 없다는 점을 주된 근거로 하여 새마을금고의 신용사업에 대해서는 상행위성을 인정하고, 이를 근거로 하여 새마을금고의 상인자격을 긍정한 판례의 논거는 거래계의 현실을 반영한 정당한 판결로 평가할 수 있을 것이다. This paper is to analyze the Supreme Court of Korea cases relating to general provision and commercial transaction under the korean commercial act in 2015. The number of cases following a small but significant case law has meaning. The first case is the transfer of business practices. This case was a landmark judgment in regard to recognition of the implied agreement of prohibition of competition obligations. And this case is setting of the prohibition of competition areas. Although the current regulations, particularly the Commercial Code is a prestigious respect to non-competition areas, and its ruling is actively reflect the spirit of the regulations by a teleological interpretation without regard to the legal text. The second case is a case that can`t be applied to the Commercial Code Article 69 The buyer of object inspection and notification obligations let the responsibility defaults. According to the case law is the Commercial Law Article 69 as a means to lose a significant portion of special rules. Finally, apply the practices commercial law with respect to the Community Credit Cooperative` credit loans. The Supreme Court ruling had denied the traders eligible for the Community Credit Cooperative, this will appeal court recognized the restrictive lending practices by traders about the qualification.

판례회고 : 2014년 상법총칙, 상행위법 판례의 동향과 분석 -2013년 판례와 함께-

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 한국상사판례학회 2015 상사판례연구 Vol.28 No.3

This paper is to analyze the Supreme Court of Korea cases relating to general provision and commercial transaction under the korean commercial act in 2014. The first, a lot of case law are related to the scope of the commercial act. In the case of korea commercial act article 3(unilateral commercial activities) stipulates that If an act of a party, among all related parties, is considered a commercial activity, this Act shall apply to all such parties involved. This case said that even if only the commercial activities of the person that one if one party has a majority in the commercial act shall apply to power. Second, The Korea Supreme Court issued a few precedents regarding the mercantile liens. The Court interpreted that clearly includes the subject matter of this real estate mercantile liens. And to prevent the abuse of lien claim was limited validity to mercantile liens. The Court eventually was interpreted differently by the effects of mercantile liens and civil liens. Third, a person who engages in the business of acting on behalf of a particular merchant, not as a commercial employee of any person but as agent or broker in transactions falling within the same line of business as such merchant, is called a commercial agent(korea commercial act article 87). The Korea Supreme Court has ruled that commercial agent must specify agent in accordance with the substance, not the name. And The Supreme Court ruled that right to request compensation can be applied to infer the provisions of the commercial agent for the dealers. Finally this paper deal with case of liability of persons who have lent their names and case of finance lease.

주식강제매수제도와 소수주주의 보호

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 한국상사판례학회 2012 상사판례연구 Vol.25 No.1

This paper deal with the compulsory acquisition of minority shares. The 2011 amendment Korean Commercial Act adopted this system in Article 360-24. According to the article, controlling shareholder who possesses 95% or more of total issued and outstanding shares of a company under his own account may request the minority shareholder the sale of the shares possessed by him if the purchase is necessary to achieve the business purpose of the company. The request for sale must be approved by the shareholders meeting in advance. On the other hand the minority shareholder also have the right to be bought out at the same level in Article 360-25. Controlling shareholder should purchase stock of minority shareholder. The new commercial act could give assistance to company to apply right of squeeze-out. But the act does know the concept of the entire fairness. The most important thing is to guarantee fairness, fair price for minorities.

연구논문(硏究論文) : 공정거래법상의 기업집단 규제의 현황과 과제

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.36 No.2

The purpose of The Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(the Act) is to promote fair and free competition, thereby encouraging creative enterprise activities, protecting consumers and striving for balanced development of the national economy. The Act also contains regulations reflecting the conditions specific to Korea, including ban on unfair support among affiliated companies of a large business group, prohibition of abuse of superior position, restrictions on holding companies, and limitations on cross-shareholding and debt guarantees. This is a unusual regulation without comparable provisions in foreign Antitrust Act. It`s not that meaningful to regulate a small enterprise group from the perspective of economic power concentration. Therefore, a large business group which has or may have concentrated economic power is subject to regulation. Under the Act, a large business group is defined as a business group whose total assets satisfy certain criteria. The asset criteria for the ceiling on total equity investment had been raised several times, continuously reducing the scope of application. Finally, the ceiling was lifted in March 2009, so designation of a large business group is solely based on the criterion for prohibition on cross-shareholding. Under the Act, such criterion is not less than 5 trillion won of total assets, and 53 chaebols are designated as large business groups as of May 2010. Cross-shareholding refers to two companies` acquiring or owning the stocks of each other. While this conduct is not in line with the principle of capital adequacy under the Corporation Act, it is also a problem from the perspective of the Act since large business groups took control of companies and concentrated their economic power by taking advantage of cross-shareholding without actually investing in the equity of the companies. As the ceiling on the total amount of shareholding was lifted with the amendment to the Act in March 2009, the only remaining regulation on shareholding is the prohibition on cross-shareholding. Although indirect or circular shareholding cannot be regulated under the existing law, regulation on cross-shareholding is still needed because this practice can be used as a means of strengthening corporate control and increasing the size of affiliate companies by facilitating the creation of fictitious capital. As direct cross-shareholding alone is subject to prohibition on cross-shareholding, indirect or circular shareholding is not effectively regulated. To supplement this system, the ceiling on the total amount of shareholding was introduced when the regulations to curb concentration of economic power were enacted in 1986. But this regulation was abolished with the amendment to the Act in March 2009. Undue Assistance refers to an act of assisting a specially-related person or other companies by providing goods, services, funds, assets and manpower for free or under extremely favorable terms. Recently the Korea Fair Trade Commission has imposed penalty surcharge on seven affiliates of the SK Group. This measures is the first case of exposing and restricting conglomerates` unfair support for affiliates by giving work under excessively privileged terms in the SI systems integration) industry. It has put the brakes on unfair internal transactions that generate excessive revenue for affiliates where the chairman`s family holds the highest stake.

상행위법의 현대화 과제

정병덕(Byung-Duck Chung) 한국기업법학회 2010 企業法硏究 Vol.24 No.3

The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the reform bill for the Commercial Act Part Ⅰ General Provisions and Ⅱ Commercial Activities on 21st April 2010 and the amended bill will take effect on 15th November 2010. The Commercial Act is a law that regulates the existence and the relationships of the enterprises that have the purpose of profit-making. is composed of five parts. such as General Provisions, Commercial Activities, Companies, Insurance, and Maritime Commerce, was enacted on January 20, 1962 as Act No. 1000, and entered into force on January 1, 1963. This Act has arrived at its present form as the result of being amended 17th times, but Part Ⅰ and Part Ⅱ have not been amended so frequently as Part Ⅲ Companies. The aim of this Amendment is to change the old fashioned law into the modernization one. In order to modernize the Commercial Act, the Ministry of Justice had prepared the reform bill to insert newly created and developed commercial activities such as broadcasting and electronic transaction, and to stipulate legal relationships between parties in transactions in order to solve uncertain legal problems arising in new commercial activities such as lease, franchise, factoring. In addition, this bill had prepared to reduce liabilities of the overland carrier, to remove the special principle of the valuation of assets. But the Assembly of Legislation and Judiciary Committee amended the bill because they had a different view from that of the Ministry. They removed and amended the broadcasting section, the reducing the overland carrier's liabilities section ect. On the ground of the above examination. I will discuss a problems for the modernization of the Commercial Activities Law such as deletion of basic commercial activities list of Commercial Act and stipulation of legal relationships between parties in commercial activities.

일반논문 : 혼합형 기업결합의 경쟁제한성 판단기준

정병덕 ( Byung Duck Chung ) 안암법학회 2005 안암 법학 Vol.- No.21

사외이사 중심의 이사회의 기능에 대한 연구

정병덕 ( Chung Byung-duck ) 한국금융법학회 2017 金融法硏究 Vol.14 No.2

현행 상법은 제정 당시부터 이사회 제도를 도입하면서, 이사회 중심의 지배구조를 채택하였다. 상법상의 이사회는 회사 업무집행에 관한 의사결정과 이사의 직무집행을 감독하는 기관으로서, 법령이나 정관으로 주주총회의 권한으로 정한 것을 제외하고는 모든 업무집행에 관한 의사를 결정한다. 그렇지만 기업 실무에서는 지배주주에 의한 경영관행이 일반화되면서 이사회는 제대로 기능하지 못하였다. 지배구조의 낙후성은 외환위기 속에서 기업부실의 중요한 원인이 되었고, 이를 개선하기 위한 노력이 광범위하게 진행되었다. 이러한 노력의 일환으로 도입된 사외이사제도는 이사회의 감독기능을 명확하게 하여 기업경영의 투명성을 확보하기 위한 것이다. 사외이사제도를 도입한 목적이 이사회의 감독기능을 강화시키고자 한 것임에도 불구하고, 상법 등의 관련법과 기업 실무에서는 이사회의 기능을 이에 맞춰서 개정하지 않았다. 이미 이사회가 집행기능과 감독기능을 동시에 수행하는 것에 대한 문제점이 지적되어 왔지만 이에 대한 개선 없이 사외이사제도를 추가하는 방식의 제도도입은 실효성 측면에서 많은 문제를 안고 있었다. 본 논문에서는 사외이사 중심의 이사회는 감독형 이사회로서 감독기능을 중시할 것을 제안하고, 감독기능의 강화를 위한 개선사항에 대하여 논하였다. 이사회에 의한 감독은 감사에 의한 감독과 달리 경영진에 대한 선임·해임권을 보유하는 것이 가장 중요하다는 전제 하에서 상법상의 이사회가 감독기능을 주된 기능으로 수행하는 것을 명시하고, 부분적으로 집행임원제도를 의무화하여야 하며, 원활한 감독기능의 수행을 위해 사외이사의 수를 확대할 것을 제안하였다. 무엇보다 이사회의 기능을 정상화하기 위해서 외부에 의한 강제적인 개선책은 실효성을 거둘 수 없기 때문에, 기업 자율적으로 자신에게 적합한 지배구조를 완비할 수 있도록 자율성을 존중하되 그에 대한 책임을 철저하게 묻는 방식으로 진행되어야 할 것이다. Korean commercial law adopts board-centricism. Under the Commercial Code, the board has both the executive and supervisory powers of the company. However, in the practice of the company, the board of directors has failed to function properly and has been arbitrarily managed by the controlling shareholder. The outside directors system introduced after the foreign exchange crisis was introduced to improve the governance structure of Korean companies by restoring the functions of the board of directors. Despite efforts to improve corporate governance, the governance structure of Korean companies has not improved dramatically. The most important reason is the arbitrary management by the controlling shareholder, but one of the reasons is that the current law does not clarify the function of the board of directors centered on outside directors. In this paper, I propose that the board of directors, which is centered on outside directors, should emphasize the supervisory function and make some suggestions to improve the monitoring function of the board. I propose that the supervisory functions be specified as the main function of the board of directors under the current law, and mandatory executive officers for the separation of supervision and supervision. Above all, I emphasized that it is important to create an environment in which companies voluntarily improve corporate governance because the improvement of corporate governance is ineffective in a forced way.

영업 양수인의 책임규정의 법적 구조

정병덕 한국상사법학회 2001 商事法硏究 Vol.20 No.2