회사 대표이사의 대표권 남용행위 중 법률상 무효행위에 대한 형법적 평가

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If CEO of the company issues public certificate and promissory notes by abusing the right of representation, in principle, there is possibility of breach of trust which can occur loss of property, but the exceptional when the person knows or can know. So the supreme court has denied possibility of breach of duty.
Standards which assessing breach of duty have little differences in a number of cases. Even though the actual standard is applied to the similar cases, on a case-by-case, the courts and supreme courts show some different determination. So this article examined several cases specifically.
It is valid to establish risk of breach of duty equal to occurrence property damage.
Even though the risk of loss or damage cannot be accepted, if the act meets the standards of breach of duty, it is possible to be sentenced with attempted breach of duty.
It is possible to sentence breach of duty if the CEO has the intention of breach of duty and illegal gain. However if the CEO abuses their representation for the company and even the act was invalid legally, the action cannot be sentenced with breach of duty, because of having no intention of property benefits for themselves or damaging
other’s property.
Therefore, CEO’ act cannot charge with breach of trust, when their damage is vague whether occurring the risk of property and having the specific risk equivalent to the degree of damages and then the action not reach the degree of risk.
However, even if the abuse of the CEO representation does not reach the degree of illegal, we have the regulation about attempted breach of trust so the CEO can be sentenced with it.
However, with respect to subjective configuration requirements of breach of trust, if they do not have intention of the crime and intention of illegal aquisition, they can be sentenced with attempted breach of trust.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 신동운, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계, In 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평(유일당 오선주교수 정년기념논문집)" 형설출판사 2001

2 김성탁, "회사법입문(전정판)" 법문사 2012

3 고재종, "회사법상 이사 등의 특별배임죄 성립 여부" 한양법학회 (32) : 79-104, 2010

4 조현욱, "형사법의 쟁점과 판례" 법문사 2009

5 정영일, "형법강의[각론]" 도서출판 학림 2013

6 정성근, "형법각론" 법지사 1996

7 김일수, "형법각론" 박영사 2007

8 김성돈, "형법각론" SKKUP 2009

9 정성근, "형법각론" SKKUP 2012

10 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2013

11 박상기, "형법각론" 박영사 2013

12 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2012

13 강동욱, "이사 등의 경영행위에 대한 배임죄 적용의 문제점" 법학연구소 23 (23): 209-246, 2012

14 오영근, "신형법입문 제3판" 박영사 2013

15 김재윤, "새로운 형법각론" 율곡출판사 2013

16 채동헌, "법인 대표자의 허위상계와 담보제공이 무효인 경우 배임죄 성립여부" 한국상장회사협회 2012

17 허일태, "배임죄에서의 행위주체와 손해의 개념" 한국비교형사법학회 6 (6): 137-158, 2004

18 문형섭, "배임죄에서 재산상 위험" 광주지방변호사회 (7) : 2002

19 류전철, "배임죄에서 재산상 손해발생의 위험" 법학연구소 30 (30): 107-130, 2010

20 안경옥, "배임죄에 있어서 실해발생의 위험" 한국비교형사법학회 (2) : 2000

21 강민호, "배임죄에 있어 고의와 손해발생 등의 의미" 감사원 (114) : 2012

22 문형섭, "배임죄에 관한 연구" 호남대학교 대학원 2001

23 김경수, "민법상 조합계약을 체결한 후 배임행위를 한 경우 그 피해자 및 재산상손해의 산정방법" 법원도서관 2011

24 한국상사판례학회, "대표이사의 대표권남용행위의 효력" 한국상사판례학회 8 : 1997

25 문상일, "대표이사 책임범위에 관한 최근 판례동향 -대법원 2010도6490 판결을 중심으로-" 한국상사판례학회 25 (25): 261-289, 2012

26 채동헌, "대표권 남용행위 및 채권자 집행과 배임죄의 성립여부" 한국상장회사협회 2012

27 Lackner, "Strafgesetzbuch : Kommentar" 2007

28 Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch" 2010

29 Fischer, "Strafgesetzbuch" 2011

30 Fischer, "Strafbarer Gefährdungsschaden oder strafloser Untreueversuch - Zur Bestimmtheit der Untreue- Rechtsprechung" 2010

31 Corsten, "Pflichtverletzung und Vermögensnachteil bei der Untreue -Kritische Betrachtung des VW-Urteils des BGH wistra 2009, 468-" 2010

32 Laufhütte, "LK, Strafgesetzbuch" 2012

33 Labsch, "Grundprobleme des Mißbrauchstatbestand der Untreue" 1987

34 Bittmann, "Dogmatik der Untreue, - insbesondere der Vermögensnachteils" 2012

35 Krawczyk, "Der Untreueparagraf auf dem verfassungsrechtlichenen Prüstand" 2010

36 Jürgen-Peter Graf, "BGH-Rechtsprechung Strafrecht 2012/2013 - Die wichtigensten Entscheidungen mit erläuterungen und Praxishinweisen" 2013