상법 개정안의 집행임원제도 고찰 - 일본의 집행역제도와 비교하여 = A Study on the Executive Officers system in Korea and Japan

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The “executive officer” is independent business operating agency that is separated from director and board of directors within its authority. The company may choose their own business executive system between Representative director that has been in a former commercial law and The “executive officer” that is on the revised bill of the commercial law in 2008. Although the absence of the legal basis, The “executive officer” system has been used widely and aroused many legal problems in status, right, responsibility, etc.; even The “executive officer” was treated equivalently with the registered director in the internal company.
The traditional organization and the actual condition of board of directors of Japanese companies were very similar with those of Korean companies. Legally, director had the right to operate business and supervise the operation as a member of the board of directors, but the supervising function could not be worked because the board of directors consisted of inside directors who were, in actual fact, divided into the upper and the lower directors. Furthermore, there were lots of obstacles to get a quick decision making and a profound discussion because a number of members of board of directors. In these condition, important business decision making was made by non-registered directors, board of directors just confirmed those decisions. To solve these problems, Japanese companies tried to reduce the number of board of directors, to shorten the term of membership and to induce the “executive officer” to separate their business operating from supervising function.
It is proper that the function of board of directors should be separated from business operating from supervising to supervise the “executive officer” in effect. The “executive officer” has the agency authority as an agent, and has the discretionary power to judge a business problem unless board of directors limit his power. The “executive officer” also has a duty of care and a duty to be faithful like a director. In the case of giving a damage to a stockhodler or a company, he should take a liability of reparation.
The company may have The “executive officer” in spite of their size in the revised bill of the commercial law in 2008. Each “executive officer” is the organ of his company. The judicial precedent said that the relationship between company and The “executive officer” is legally empolyment contract, even though the most theory has been telling us that the relationship is legally delegation contract. As “executive officer” has the discretionary power and independence of business operation, it is proper that the relationship should be legally delegation contract. The revised bill conclude this relationship is delegation contract. In this point of view, The “executive officer” has the discretionary power to decide the policy of their company, also he has a duty of care and a duty to be faithful.
In the revised bill, the company that has The “executive officer” should have the chairman of the board of directors who is assigned by the board of directors unless the articles of incorporation decide about chairman. In my humble point of view, at first, we need the regulation about the prohibition of concurrent office between The “executive officer” and directors; between the representative “executive officer” and the chairman of the board of directors. Second, However the board of directors has the power to decide every business operating policy and the power to supervise each director in the law in force, it should be changed. The “executive officer” should have the power to make a decision about the policy of company. The board of directors should have the power to supervise the company. In other words, the function of decision making and the supervision should be separated.
The introduction of the system of “executive officer” may establish the clarity of Corporate...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The “executive officer” is independent business operating agency that is separated from director and board of directors within its authority. The company may choose their own business executive system between Representative director that has been in a former commercial law and The “executive officer” that is on the revised bill of the commercial law in 2008. Although the absence of the legal basis, The “executive officer” system has been used widely and aroused many legal problems in status, right, responsibility, etc.; even The “executive officer” was treated equivalently with the registered director in the internal company.
The traditional organization and the actual condition of board of directors of Japanese companies were very similar with those of Korean companies. Legally, director had the right to operate business and supervise the operation as a member of the board of directors, but the supervising function could not be worked because the board of directors consisted of inside directors who were, in actual fact, divided into the upper and the lower directors. Furthermore, there were lots of obstacles to get a quick decision making and a profound discussion because a number of members of board of directors. In these condition, important business decision making was made by non-registered directors, board of directors just confirmed those decisions. To solve these problems, Japanese companies tried to reduce the number of board of directors, to shorten the term of membership and to induce the “executive officer” to separate their business operating from supervising function.
It is proper that the function of board of directors should be separated from business operating from supervising to supervise the “executive officer” in effect. The “executive officer” has the agency authority as an agent, and has the discretionary power to judge a business problem unless board of directors limit his power. The “executive officer” also has a duty of care and a duty to be faithful like a director. In the case of giving a damage to a stockhodler or a company, he should take a liability of reparation.
The company may have The “executive officer” in spite of their size in the revised bill of the commercial law in 2008. Each “executive officer” is the organ of his company. The judicial precedent said that the relationship between company and The “executive officer” is legally empolyment contract, even though the most theory has been telling us that the relationship is legally delegation contract. As “executive officer” has the discretionary power and independence of business operation, it is proper that the relationship should be legally delegation contract. The revised bill conclude this relationship is delegation contract. In this point of view, The “executive officer” has the discretionary power to decide the policy of their company, also he has a duty of care and a duty to be faithful.
In the revised bill, the company that has The “executive officer” should have the chairman of the board of directors who is assigned by the board of directors unless the articles of incorporation decide about chairman. In my humble point of view, at first, we need the regulation about the prohibition of concurrent office between The “executive officer” and directors; between the representative “executive officer” and the chairman of the board of directors. Second, However the board of directors has the power to decide every business operating policy and the power to supervise each director in the law in force, it should be changed. The “executive officer” should have the power to make a decision about the policy of company. The board of directors should have the power to supervise the company. In other words, the function of decision making and the supervision should be separated.
The introduction of the system of “executive officer” may establish the clarity of Corporate Gove...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 大阪地判, (1721) : 2000

2 이철송, "회사법강의" 박영사 2009

3 이학종, "한국기업의 문화적 특성과 새 기업문화 개발" 박영사 2001

4 정찬형, "한국 주식회사에서의 집행임원에 관한 연구" 고려대법학연구원 (43) : 2004

5 김대연, "판례연구 : 회사의 내부통제시스템과 이사의 감시의무-대화은행주식대표소송사건-" 한국상사판례확회 12 : 2001

6 김정호, "집행임원제에 대한 연구" 한국경영법률학회 18 (18): 133-171, 2008

7 한국상장회사협의회, "집행임원제도의 법제화에 관한 의견" 2006

8 전국경제인연합회, "집행임원제도의 문제점" 2006

9 차대운/정쾌영, "집행임원제도의 도입필요성과 입법론적 과제" 한국상장회사협의회 49 (49): 2004

10 양만식, "집행임원제도의 도입에 따른 지배구조론의 전개" 한국상사법학회 24 (24): 177-231, 2005

11 서완석, "집행임원제도의 도입에 따른 문제점 및 개선방안 연구" 법학연구소 20 (20): 387-414, 2008

12 허인, "집행임원제도의 도입방안에 관한 법적 연구" 한국외국어대 2005

13 강희갑, "집행임원제도의 도입과 기업환경" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 11-25, 2007

14 정쾌영, "집행임원제도에 관한 상법 개정안의 문제점 검사" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 2007

15 김영호, "집행임원제도-법리 구성 및 입법적 검토를 중심으로-" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 2007

16 송호신, "집행임원제도 입법안에 대한 재검토" 한국법정책학회 8 (8): 167-187, 2008

17 윤성승, "집행임원의 법적지위 및 책임의 비판적 고찰" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 37-70, 2006

18 원동욱, "집행임원의 법적 지위" 한국상사판례학회 19 (19): 143-176, 2006

19 이기수, "증권거래법(전정판)" 세창출판사 2003

20 도제문, "주요국의 Corporate Governance 개선노력과 시사점-최근 일본의 제도정비를 중심으로-" 고려대법학연구원 (43) : 2006

21 홍복기, "주식회사의 지배구조에 관한 개정시안" 한국법학원 (94) : 5-30, 2006

22 홍복기, "주식회사에 있어 집행임원제도의 도입과 그 과제" 한국상사판례학회 19 (19): 2006

23 정찬형, "주식회사 지배구조관련 개정의견" 한국상사법학회 상사법개정연구위원회 2005

24 양동석, "임원제도도입에 따른 법적 문제" 한국상사법학회 20 (20): 2001

25 김용열, "일본의 친기업정책과 제도변화" 한국경제연구원 2007

26 김광록, "일본 기업의 지배구조에 관한 연구" 대한일어일문학회 (21) : 211-230, 2004

27 매일경제, "일본 2004년 집행임원제 도입, 한국 빼고 OECD국 모두 채택"

28 허인, "우리나라 임원의 운영실태와 규제방안에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 (20) : 167-206, 2005

29 강희갑, "미국법상의 집행임원제도의 도입에 관한 연구" 한국비교사법학회 7 (7): 2000

30 최준선, "기업지배구조의 실태분석" 한국기업법학회 19 (19): 35-54, 2005

31 김문재, "非登記任員의 法的 地位(대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고, 2002다64681 판결)(원심: 대구고법 2002. 10. 11. 선고, 2001나9596 판결)" 한국상사판례학회 (16) : 293-337, 2004

32 牧野達也, "機關·規模別決算·總會スケズ一ルの立て方, In 新會社法詳說" 中央經濟社 2005

33 江頭憲治郞, "株式會社·有限會社法, 第4版" 有斐閣 2005

34 江頭憲治郞, "會社法制の現代化に關する要綱案" (1721) : 2001

35 岩原神作, "新會社法の意義と問題點" (1775) : 2006

36 苩田公明, "執行役員の法的地位と責任" (1505) : 1998

37 원동욱, "執行任員制度의 導入方案" 한국경영법률학회 16 (16): 343-400, 2006

38 정쾌영, "內部統制制度에 관한 考察 －監事·監査委員會의 監査機能 提高를 중심으로 －" 한국상사법학회 26 (26): 5-82, 2007

39 Johnson, Lyman P.Q., "Recalling why corporate officers are fiduciaries" 46 : 2005

40 Shishido, Zenichi, "Japanese corporate governance : the hidden problems of corporate law and their solutions" 25 : 189-, 2000

41 Reiji, Yoshida, "Japan gropes for ideal corporate governance model"

42 Nomura Research Institute, "Corporate governance: a new phrase for Japanese companies" 2002

43 Hashimoto, Motomi, "Commercial code revisions : promoting the evolution of Japanese companies" 10 : 2002

44 Gordon, Jeffery N., "Closing remark : what Enron means for the management and control of the modern business corporation : some initial reflections" 69 : 1233-, 2002

45 Goldstein, Marc, "A rude awakening in Japan" 2002

46 정찬형, "2006년 회사법개정에 관한 상법개정시안의 주요내용" 고려대학교 법학연구원 (47) : 2006

47 전국경제인연합회, "1998년 전경련 사업총람" 1999