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
오류제보하기
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.
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.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 2001년 개정상법 제418조의 타당성
Ⅲ. 전환사채와 주주의 우선인수권
Ⅳ. 결론
參考文獻
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
자본조달과 신주인수권
경영법률
2007 .01
-
중국 주식시장의 주권분치(株權分置) 개혁에 관한 연구
동북아 문화연구
2011 .12
-
定期株主總會 決議案에 대한 臨時株主總會의 變更ㆍ取消決議案의 效力과 稅法上 이에 관한 解釋力의 限界
기업법연구
2008 .09
-
지역축제의 이해집단 협력기대 효과 및 평가
관광경영연구
2009 .01
-
타인명의에 의한 주식거래와 주식명의신탁
증권법연구
2018 .12
-
현물출자시 주주의 신주인수권의 제한
경영법률
2015 .01
-
不公正한 新株發行과 救濟手段
기업법연구
2003 .12
-
新株引受權의 法理
법학연구
2006 .05
-
상법상 워런트제도의 도입방향
기업법연구
2011 .06
-
證券去來法上의 商法特例規定에 관한 批判的 檢討
기업법연구
2007 .06
-
국제 M&A공시가 주주부에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구
전북대학교 산업경제연구소 논문집
1996 .12
-
中国民法典制定背景下按份共有人优先购买权评析
동북아법연구
2019 .01
-
The Market for Human Rights Law
한국국제정치학회 기타간행물
2011 .06
-
인터넷기술을 이용한 주주총회제도의 법적 과제
기업법연구
2006 .03
-
부산지역 전시·컨벤션산업클러스터 기반에 대한 이해당사자들의 평가에 관한 연구
관광연구논총
2008 .12
-
대주주지분률 변동이 기업가치에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증연구
산업경제연구
2002 .12
-
국내적 인권과 국제적 인권? : 인권 개념의 이중성에 대한 소고
한양법학
2011 .08
-
복지권의 구성과 성격
한국사회복지학
2003 .12
-
株主의 議決權制限에 관한 考察
기업과혁신연구
1981 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015210942