이중대표소송의 도입에 관한 고찰 = A Study on Introduction of Double Derivative Suit

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the States, courts have permitted double derivative suits by the reason of piercing the corporate veil, common control, fiduciary theory, agency theory and specific performance theory. On the other hand courts have espoused two principal theories in opposition to derivative suits. The first theory is that double derivative suits are unnecessary because alternative remedies exist. The second reason is that shareholders do not satisfy contemporaneous ownership requirement.
Legal scholars suggest that double derivative suits have two policy purposes: compensation and deterrence of wrongdoing by directors of subsidiaries like single derivative suits. Double derivative suits may prove of greater importance in deterring wrongdoing to subsidiary corporations than single derivative suits. Because the presence of an extra corporate layer reduces the likelihood that shareholders will detect the wrongdoing.
Korean Corporate Law does not have a regulation on double derivative suit, so it is controversial whether double derivative suit is permitted under Korean Corporate Law Article 403 which is supposed to regulate single derivative suit. But under Article 403 double derivative suit could not be permitted because it means disregarding the existence of two corporate entities - a subsidiary and a parent corporation. Thus it is desirable that to introduce double derivative suit by Korean Corporate Law. When it introduce double derivative suit, a few points are to be considered as follows: first, it is reasonable to permit double derivative suit between parent corporations and subsidiaries. But it should be examined seriously to extend double derivative suit to corporations that have de facto controlling interest. Second, Information on subsidiaries including minutes of board and shareholders" meeting should be available to shareholders of parent corporations so as to detect the wrongdoing of directors of subsidiary. Third, the procedure of double derivative suit should be more clear.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 외국의 입법례와 판례
• Ⅲ. 이중대표소송 허부에 관한 미국법상의 논의
• Ⅳ. 상법상 이중대표소송의 허용여부
• Ⅴ. 이중대표소송의 도입에 관한 상법개정시안에 대한 검토
• Ⅵ. 맺음말
• 【참고문헌】
• 【Abstract】

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "지주회사의 도입에 따른 회사법의 향방: 지배와 책임을 중심으로" 한국상사법학회 18 (18): 1999

2 "지배회사주주의 이중대표소송" 한국증권법학회 15 (15): 2004

3 "주주의 대표소송과 중복대표소송" 한국경영법률학회 11 : 2000

4 "주주대표소송과 원고적격" 한국비교사법학회 12 (12): 2005

5 "종속 지배회사에서의 대표소송" 한국상사법학회 19 (19): 2000

6 "이중대표소송의 허용가능성: 대법원 2004.9.23선고, 2003다49221판결" 한국기업법학회 19 (19): 2005

7 "이중대표소송의 허부에 관한 비교법적 검토: 서울고등법원 2003.8.22 선고, 2002나13746 판결을 대상으로 하여" 한국비교사법학회 11 (11): 2004

8 "이중대표소송의 인정근거" 한국상사판례학회 15 : 2003

9 "이중대표소송 도입의 문제점" 전국경제인연합회 2006.8

10 "이중대표소송 도입에 관한 입법론적 고찰" 한국상사판례학회 2006

11 "실무상의 문제점을 중심으로" 1972

12 "상법(회사편)개정 공청회자료" 법무부 2006.7

13 "미국회사법상 이중대표소송" 수원지방법원 2 : 1997

14 "모회사주주의 대표소송과 이사의 경영판단" 한국상사판례학회 17 : 2004

15 "다중대표소송에 관한 고찰 21세기 한국상사법의 진로" 2002

16 "The Survival of the Derivative Suit:An Evaluation and a Proposal for Legislative Reform" 261 : 1981

17 "The Dilemma of the Double Derivative Suit" 729 : 1989

18 "Suits by a Shareholder in Parent Corporation to Redress Injuries to the Subsidiary" 1318 : 1951

19 "Principles of Corporate Governance" 1994

20 "Laws of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises" West Publishing Co. 1983

21 "Deterrence and the Market as Boundaries for Derivative Suit Procedures" 52-, 1984