會社機會 法理의 導入에 관한 比較法的 考察 = A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Opportunity Doctrine in the Reform Proposal to the Commercial Code

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  In the United States, corporate opportunity doctrine aims at protecting the interests of the corporation by imposing on its fiduciaries such as directors, officers and controlling shareholders the duty of not usurping for their own benefits any business opportunities belonging to the corporation. It is difficult to define the concept of corporate opportunity because of the fact-intensive nature of corporate opportunity doctrine. And many tests have developed for determining whether the fiduciaries of the corporation misappropriate corporate opportunities, for example, the interest or expectancy test, the line of business test, the fairness test and the two-step analysis.<BR>  In Korea, the Ministry of Justice tries to introduce corporate opportunity doctrine into the Commercial Code and the new version of the reform proposal was presented to the National Assembly. However, the new version of the reform proposal has some problems to solve and this article makes some suggestions as follows:<BR>  First, corporate opportunity doctrine is applied to controlling shareholders as well as directors and officers because there are some cases in which controlling shareholders misappropriate corporate opportunities in these days. Second, requirements for procedural fairness in taking corporate opportunities and requirements for substantial fairness in using corporate opportunities are provided rather than written provisions regarding the definition and scope of corporate opportunities. Third, rules of remedies for returning unfair profits are provided besides indemnification for damages. Fourth, rules of the burden of proof are provided. Finally, the definition of usurping corporate opportunities is not limited within the definition of self-dealing because there are some differences between the two definitions.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序論
  Ⅱ. 우리 商法 改正法律案上 規定內容
  Ⅲ. 美國 會社法上 會社機會의 法理
  Ⅳ. 會社機會 法理의 導入에 있어서의 課題
  Ⅴ. 結論
  【Abstract】
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 권재열, "회사기회의법리 －2007년 2월 조정된 상법개정안의 비교법적 검토－" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 71-112, 2007

2 임재연, "회사기회의 유용" 대한변호사협회 (363) : 176-185, 2006

3 김원기, 박선종, "회사기회유용금지의 법리 - 미국 법원들의 중요 고려요건과 그 적용가능성 -" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 83-112, 2007

4 최준선, "한국 회사법의 개정방향" (54) : 2006

5 이철송, "전게서"

6 임재연, "전게논문"

7 경제개혁연대, "재계의 회사기회유용 규제 반대주장에 대한 반박보고서"

8 허덕회, "이사의 회사기회유용에 대한 규제-ALI의 Principles of Corporate Governance를 중심으로-" 20 (20): 498-499,

9 김병연, "이사의 충실의무와 영미법상 신인의무(Fiduciary duty)" 24 (24): 67-74,

10 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2006

11 최완진, "상법 개정의 방향에 관한 고찰" 25 : 193-195,

12 권순희, "상법 개정안 제398조 제3항(회사기회의 유용금지)에 관한 이론적 검토" 한국상사법학회 26 (26): 27-54, 2007

13 김형배, "민법학강의" 신조사 2004

14 최문희, "기업집단에서의 회사기회유용" (19) : 24-28, 2006

15 최준선, "會社機會流用禁止理論에 관한 考察" 한국법학원 (95) : 123-137, 2006

16 최준선, "會社機會流用禁止理論에 관한 考察" 한국법학원 (95) : 123-137, 2006

17 John C. Coffee, "The Unfaithful Champion: The Plaintiff as Monitor in Shareholder Litigation"

18 Roberta Romano, "The Shareholder Suit: Litigation Without Foundation? 7 Journal of Law"

19 Luca Enriques, "The Law on Company Directors' Self-dealing: A Comparative Analysis"

20 Gerard Hertig, "Related Party Transactions"

21 Symposium, "Norms and Corporate law"

22 Thomas E. Abeltshauser, "Leitungshaftung im Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht"

23 Melvin A. Eisenberg, "Corporate Law and Social Norms"

24 Robert C. Clark, "Corporate Law"

25 Klaus J. Hopt, "Common Principles of Corporate Governance in Europe"

26 "."