소수주주의 주식매수청구권 박탈로 인한 주주총회결의의 무효 여부 = 대법원 2010. 7. 22. 선고 2008다37193 판결(분할합병무효 등)을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

When there are certain fundamental corporate changes, appraisal rights provide dissenting shareholders the option to sell their shares back to the corporation for fair value. Examples of fundamental corporate changes are following; mergers, acquisition, divisions-mergers, consolidations, serious charter amendments, sales of substantially all the corporation"s assets and so on. The purpose of appraisal rights is to protect minority shareholders who do not want fundamental changes nor be forced to invest in new corporations against their free will.
If proposed corporate action for fundamental corporate changes requiring appraisal rights becomes effective, the corporation must give a notice to all shareholders who are entitled to assert appraisal rights before shareholders" meeting. However, in the Supreme Court"s case(대법원 2010. 7.22. 선고 2008다37193 판결), minority shareholders who held about 9% of the total corporation"s shares were deprived of their appraisal rights because the corporation missed to give them a notice about fundamental corporate changes requiring appraisal rights before shareholders" meeting. Superior court of New Jersey in Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., held that majority shareholders, no matter however overwhelming it may turn out to be, may not deprive appraisal rights of minority shareholders, no matter how few they may be in number. Like this decision, the dissenting shareholders have right to object to corporation"s plan and obtain appraisal right of their respective shares. To do so, the corporation should have given minority shareholders (no matter how few they may be in number) a notice about fundamental corporate changes requiring appraisal rights before shareholders" meeting.
This article focuses on discussing whether defects which deprived minority shareholders of appraisal rights make resolution at shareholders" meeting void or voidable. Part II reviews detail facts of the Supreme Court"s case to clarify the issues of this article. This part also overviews history and role of dissenter"s appraisal rights and finds out that shareholders in division-merger cases are able to have statutory appraisal rights like shareholders in merger cases. Part III addresses whether defects which deprived minority shareholders of appraisal rights make resolution at shareholders" meeting void or voidable under the Supreme Court"s case laws. Part IV discusses whether defects which deprived minority shareholders of appraisal rights make resolution at shareholders" meeting void or voidable under the U.S. case laws. Part V compares the Supreme Court"s case with another Supreme Court"s case(대법원 1993. 10. 12. 선고 92다28235, 28242 판결) which is factually similar to the former. Lastly, part VI, as a conclusion, proposes that defects which deprived minority shareholders of appraisal rights should make resolution at shareholders" meeting void to protect minority shareholders.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 대상판결사안의 검토
• Ⅲ. 통지의무 위반에 관련된 대법원 판례
• Ⅳ. 통지의무 위반에 관련된 미국의 판례
• Ⅴ. 대법원 1993. 10. 12. 선고 92다28235, 28242 판결과의 비교
• Ⅵ. 결론 및 제언
• 參考文獻
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김상근, "주주총회결의하자 소송에 관한 실무적 고찰" 12 : 2003

2 김진욱, "주식매수청구권제도 개선의 필요성 - 자본시장법상의 주식매수청구권 특례조항을 중심으로 -" 한국기업법학회 24 (24): 161-192, 2010

3 주기종, "주식매수청구권에 관한 소고" 31 (31): 2009

4 최승재, "주식가치 평가와 공정한 가액에 대한 고찰" 2 (2): 2010

5 이영기, "자본시장법 해설" 동아대학교출판부 2011

6 이상훈, "소수주주들이 주식매수청구권 행사시 기회를 갖지 못한 것만으로는 이 사건 분할합병을 무효라고 할 수 없다 2010.7.22. 선고2008다37193판결(분할합병무효 등)" 21 (21): 2010

7 강 헌, "반대주주의 주식매수청구권제도의 제도적 타당성에 관한 소고, In 반대주주의 주식매수청구권제도의 제도적 타당성에 관한 소고, 세계화시대의 기업법: 횡천 이기수선생 정년기념" 박영사 2011

8 이성웅, "미국회사법상 주식매수청구권의 기능" (9) : 2001

9 김건식, "미국회사법상 반대주주의 주식매수청구권" 34 (34): 1993

10 임재연, "미국기업법" 박영사 2009

11 김재형, "미국 델라웨어주법상 합병시의 소수파주주 보호" 한국비교사법학회 9 (9): -22, 2002

12 김동민, "會社分割에 있어서 分割反對株主의 株式買受請求權에 관한 小考" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 410-438, 2007

13 Bayless Manning, "The Shareholder's Appraisal Remedy : An Essay for Frank Coker" 72 : 223-, 1962

14 Peter V. Letsou, "The Role of Appraisal in Corporate Law" 39 : 1121-, 1998

15 Stuart R. Cohn, "The Non-Merger Virtual Merger: Is Corporate Law Ready for Virtual Reality?" 29 : 1-, 2004

16 Mary Siegel, "The Erosion of the Law of Controlling Shareholders" 24 : 27-, 1999

17 Daniel Fischel, "The Appraisal Remedy in Corporate Law" 1983 : 875-, 1983

18 Hideki Kanda, "The Appraisal Remedy and the Goals of Corporate Law" 32 : 429-, 1985

19 Randall S. Thomas, "Revising the Delaware Appraisal Statute" 3 : 1-, 2000

20 Joel Seligman, "Reappraising the Appraisal Remedy" 52 : 829-, 1984

21 Robert B. Thompson, "Exit, Liquidity, and Majority Rule: Appraisal's Role in Corporate Law" 84 : 1-, 1995

22 Avid S. Reid, "Dissenter's Rights: An Analysis Exposing the Judicial Myth of Awarding Only Simple Interest" 36 : 515-, 1994

23 Robert B. Tompson, "Delaware, the Feedd, and the Stock Exchange: Challenges to the First State as First in Corporate Law" 29 : 779-, 2004

24 Mary Siegel, "Back to the Future: Appraisal Rights in the Twenty-First Century" 32 : 79-, 1995

25 Emily I. Osiecki, "Alabama By-Products Corp. v. Cede & Co.: Shareholder Protection Through Strict Statutory Construction" 22 : 221-, 1997