인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
The stockholders' preemptive rights were strengthened in the 2001 Revised Korean Commercial Law. Before the Revision, a Provision was necessary in the Articles to deprive the stockholders of their preemptive rights(procedural condition). But after the Revision, it was also necessary to demand a substantial condition, that is, there must be a "necessity to achieve the business I purposes of the corporation" to deprive the stockholders of their rights. Was this Revision made in a correct way?
And the Korean Commercial Law takes a different approach as to the stockholders' preemptive rights on the Stock and on the Convertible Bonds(same as on the Bonds with Stock Purchase Warrants). Unlike on the Stock, stockholders do not have a preemptive rights on the Convertible Bonds in the Korean Commercial Law. The writer think it desirable to take a same approach on the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock and on the convertible bonds. But it is impossible to interpret like that due to the explicit provision of the Korean Commercial Law.
The Korean Commercial Law makes an error in providing the stockholders' preemptive rights in a different way as to on the stock and on the convertible bonds. In other countries they provide the stockholders' preemptive rights in a same way. If they give the stockholders the preemptive rights on the stock, they also give the stockholders the preemptive rights on the convertible bonds, and vise versa. With the section 418 of the Korean Commercial Law, It will be correct to give the stockholders the same preemptive rights on the convertible bonds as on the stock. The difficulties in giving the stockholders the preemptive rights on the convertible bonds result from the fact that section 513 of the Korean Commercial Law copied the same provision of the 1974 Japanese Commercial Law. In the 1984 Revision of the Korean Commercial Law they introduced the Japanese Commercial law uncritically, notwithstanding the difference in two countries' approach on the stockholders' preemptive rights. It was a very critical mistakes. And it was even more critical mistakes not to correct this mistakes in 2001 Revision of the Korean Commercial Law. So it is urgent to correct the mistakes with the Revision of the Commercial Law. The writer thinks it desirable to provide the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock in the same way as on the convertible bonds, to make it easy for the corporation to raise a capital. In conclusion, the writer proposes to abolish the section 418, and to provide the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock in the same way as in section 513 of the Commercial Law. In this respect, the writer thinks the 2001 Revision of the Commercial Law undesirable in its strengthening the stockholders' preemptive rights.
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지And the Korean Commercial Law takes a different approach as to the stockholders' preemptive rights on the Stock and on the Convertible Bonds(same as on the Bonds with Stock Purchase Warrants). Unlike on the Stock, stockholders do not have a preemptive rights on the Convertible Bonds in the Korean Commercial Law. The writer think it desirable to take a same approach on the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock and on the convertible bonds. But it is impossible to interpret like that due to the explicit provision of the Korean Commercial Law.
The Korean Commercial Law makes an error in providing the stockholders' preemptive rights in a different way as to on the stock and on the convertible bonds. In other countries they provide the stockholders' preemptive rights in a same way. If they give the stockholders the preemptive rights on the stock, they also give the stockholders the preemptive rights on the convertible bonds, and vise versa. With the section 418 of the Korean Commercial Law, It will be correct to give the stockholders the same preemptive rights on the convertible bonds as on the stock. The difficulties in giving the stockholders the preemptive rights on the convertible bonds result from the fact that section 513 of the Korean Commercial Law copied the same provision of the 1974 Japanese Commercial Law. In the 1984 Revision of the Korean Commercial Law they introduced the Japanese Commercial law uncritically, notwithstanding the difference in two countries' approach on the stockholders' preemptive rights. It was a very critical mistakes. And it was even more critical mistakes not to correct this mistakes in 2001 Revision of the Korean Commercial Law. So it is urgent to correct the mistakes with the Revision of the Commercial Law. The writer thinks it desirable to provide the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock in the same way as on the convertible bonds, to make it easy for the corporation to raise a capital. In conclusion, the writer proposes to abolish the section 418, and to provide the stockholders' preemptive rights on the stock in the same way as in section 513 of the Commercial Law. In this respect, the writer thinks the 2001 Revision of the Commercial Law undesirable in its strengthening the stockholders' preemptive rights.
정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- Ⅰ. 서론
- Ⅱ. 2001년 개정상법 제418조의 타당성
- Ⅲ. 전환사채와 주주의 우선인수권
- Ⅳ. 결론
- 參考文獻
- Abstract
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015210942
