회사의 동일성, 채무면탈 목적과 법인격부인론의 적용 －대법원 2010.1.14. 선고 2009다77327 판결－ = The Sameness of Corporations, Evasive Intention to Claim and Application of Corporate Disregard

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this case the Supreme Court said that if the new corporation which has the same type and content as a corporation, was incorporated to evade the debt of a corporation, then the legal entity of new corporation was misused and it wasn't permitted to assert that two corporations have independent legal entity. In deciding the sameness of two corporations, the Supreme Court considered the sameness of corporate addresses, business objects, business facilities, directors, officers, shareholders and employees of the corporations. There are questions in this decision.
First, the Court showed several elements to decide the sameness of two corporations. This consideration is based on the sameness of the type and contents of corporations to deny the dependent legal entity of corporation. However I think the misuse of corporate entity should be decided first by the effect of incorporation on the recovery of claims rather than sameness of corporations.
Second, I think the several elements should not be considered throughly. The Court said that several situations should be judged overall and there are no judgement about the importance of individual element. To decide the misuse of legal entity the sameness of governance relation between two corporations and the evasive intent of claim should be accounted.
The Court used to judge the case of evasion on the same reason. It should be dealt with the problem of the case in that creditor didn't be fully satisfied in addition to the case of evasion of debt. Creditor hasn't the sufficient means to satisfy, while a corporation is easily incorporated to evade the debt. To prevent this evasion, it would be important that the Court disregard positively the legal entity of the corporation which was misused.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김정호, 회사법 2010

2 이철송, "회사법강의 제18판" 2010

3 정동윤, "회사법 제7판" 2005

4 최준선, "회사법 제4판" 2009

5 임홍근, "회사법" 2001

6 곽윤직, "채권총론 제6판" 2003

7 이은영, "채권총론 제3판" 2006

8 김형배, "채권총론 제2판" 1999

9 박준서, "주석민법[채권총칙(2)]" 1999

10 최기원, "신회사법론 제12대정판" 2005

11 정찬형, "상법강의(상) 제14판" 2011

12 김재범, "법인격이 형해화에 이르지 않은 경우 법인격부인론의 적용요건 대법원 2008. 9. 11. 선고 2007다90982 판결, 21세기 상사법ㆍ민사소송법의 과제, 하촌정동윤 선생 고희기념논문집" 2009

13 나지원, "법인격부인에 관한 판례동향연구" 39 : 2009

14 김정호, "법인격부인론의 적용범위" (41) : 2003

15 김재형, "법인격, 그 인정과 부정 － 법인격 부인 또는 남용에 관한 판례의 전개를 중심으로 －" 한국민사법학회 (44) : 31-65, 2009

16 지원림, "민법강의 제7판" 2008

17 伊藤靖史, "財産讓渡による債權者詐害と法人格否認⋅詐害行爲取消權" (1649) : 2002

18 高瀨保守, "法人格否認の法理 その現狀と課題" (1179) : 2005

19 송호영, "旣存會社의 債務免脫의 의도로 新設會社가 설립된 것인지의 여부가 문제되는 경우" 민사판례연구회 (32) : 93-126, 2010

20 上柳克, "新版注釋會社法(1)" 1985