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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2010.6
- 수록면
- 69 - 124 (56page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Under the Korean corporate law, the usurpation of corporate opportunity has not properly regulated and legal principles concerning usurpation of corporate opportunity are also insufficient. Lately the Ministry of Justice in Korea tries to introduce the corporate opportunity doctrine into the Commercial Code. But the reform proposal limited the range of corporate opportunity doctrine to self-dealing transactions between corporation and a third party under the guidance of the director. In this study, on the basis of the U.S. case laws, ALI"s Principles of Corporate Governance, I try to examine what statute is appropriated for usurpation of corporate opportunity in Korea and I propose a model corporate opportunity statute.
The doctrine of corporate opportunities provides that corporate fiduciaries cannot divert and exploit for their own benefit any opportunity that should be deemed an asset of the corporation. The major difficulty in this area is in distinguishing between those business opportunities that belong to the corporation and those in which the corporate interest is insufficient to require any prohibition against the fiduciary"s individual appropriation of the opportunity. The U.S. courts have applied a variety of tests in assessing whether a particular opportunity belongs to the corporation. The most commonly applied tests are whether the opportunity falls within the corporation"s “line of business” and whether the corporation has a tangible interest or expectancy in the opportunity and whether upon the particular facts, the fiduciary"s taking of the opportunity was fair. And fiduciaries may claim that they should be absolved from liability under the corporate opportunity doctrine because the business consented to a taking, either in individual cases, or categorically through ex ante blanket consent, the taking of the opportunity was fair to the business, the business was legally unable to exploit the opportunity when it was presented, or a third party refused to deal with the fiduciary"s business, the business was financially unable to exploit the opportunity when it was presented to the fiduciary or the opportunity was presented to the fiduciary in his individual, as opposed to his official corporate capacity. Although a fiduciary may assert several defenses in response to corporate opportunity claims, these defenses have been recognized or rejected in jurisdictions. The American Law Institute approach to corporate opportunity, promulgated in 1994, also borrows substantially from the Guth test. The principal feature of the ALI test is its strict requirement that the fiduciary disclose a potential corporate opportunity to his business. Under the ALI test, the party challenging the taking of an opportunity has the initial burden of proving the existence of the corporate opportunity.
In my study of the corporate opportunity, I suggest a model corporate opportunity statute. This proposed statute retains obvious test for establishing the existence of a corporate opportunity like line of business test and provides that the fiduciary may use a corporate opportunity if the business consented to the taking before the fiduciary proceeded or the business was not financially able to take the opportunity when it arose. Moreover the proposed statute contains that it is also applied to controlling shareholders and outside directors are responsible for only specific context. And if a fiduciary is found to have usurped a corporate opportunity, the proposed statute will impose a effect like constructive trust in favor of the corporation, thereby denying to the fiduciary any profits obtained as a result of his breach of duty.
The doctrine of corporate opportunities provides that corporate fiduciaries cannot divert and exploit for their own benefit any opportunity that should be deemed an asset of the corporation. The major difficulty in this area is in distinguishing between those business opportunities that belong to the corporation and those in which the corporate interest is insufficient to require any prohibition against the fiduciary"s individual appropriation of the opportunity. The U.S. courts have applied a variety of tests in assessing whether a particular opportunity belongs to the corporation. The most commonly applied tests are whether the opportunity falls within the corporation"s “line of business” and whether the corporation has a tangible interest or expectancy in the opportunity and whether upon the particular facts, the fiduciary"s taking of the opportunity was fair. And fiduciaries may claim that they should be absolved from liability under the corporate opportunity doctrine because the business consented to a taking, either in individual cases, or categorically through ex ante blanket consent, the taking of the opportunity was fair to the business, the business was legally unable to exploit the opportunity when it was presented, or a third party refused to deal with the fiduciary"s business, the business was financially unable to exploit the opportunity when it was presented to the fiduciary or the opportunity was presented to the fiduciary in his individual, as opposed to his official corporate capacity. Although a fiduciary may assert several defenses in response to corporate opportunity claims, these defenses have been recognized or rejected in jurisdictions. The American Law Institute approach to corporate opportunity, promulgated in 1994, also borrows substantially from the Guth test. The principal feature of the ALI test is its strict requirement that the fiduciary disclose a potential corporate opportunity to his business. Under the ALI test, the party challenging the taking of an opportunity has the initial burden of proving the existence of the corporate opportunity.
In my study of the corporate opportunity, I suggest a model corporate opportunity statute. This proposed statute retains obvious test for establishing the existence of a corporate opportunity like line of business test and provides that the fiduciary may use a corporate opportunity if the business consented to the taking before the fiduciary proceeded or the business was not financially able to take the opportunity when it arose. Moreover the proposed statute contains that it is also applied to controlling shareholders and outside directors are responsible for only specific context. And if a fiduciary is found to have usurped a corporate opportunity, the proposed statute will impose a effect like constructive trust in favor of the corporation, thereby denying to the fiduciary any profits obtained as a result of his breach of duty.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 회사기회의 범위에 관한 판단기준
Ⅲ. ALI 기준
Ⅳ. 회사기회유용에 대한 항변요건
Ⅴ. 회사기회유용의 입법의 검토
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (25)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권순희 / 2007 / 상법 개정안 제398조 제3항(회사기회의 유용금지)에 관한 이론적 검토 / 상사법연구 26 (3) : 27 ~ 54
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권재열 / 2007 / 회사기회의 법리: 2007년 2월 조정된 상법개정안의 비교법적 검토 / 상사법연구 25 (4) : 71 ~ 112
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권종호 / 2001 / 한국형 사외이사제도의 문제점과 그 개선방안에 관한 입법론적 모색 / 상장협 (44)
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김성호 / 2001 / 미국에서의 이사의 감시의무와 책임의 완화 / 상사법연구 19 (3)
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김영균 / 2007 / 사외이사의 책임제한ㆍ완화론에 대한 비판적 검토 / 기업법연구 21 (2) : 97 ~ 126
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권재열 / 2007 / 회사기회의 법리: 2007년 2월 조정된 상법개정안의 비교법적 검토 / 상사법연구 25 (4) : 71 ~ 112
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권종호 / 2001 / 한국형 사외이사제도의 문제점과 그 개선방안에 관한 입법론적 모색 / 상장협 (44)
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김성호 / 2001 / 미국에서의 이사의 감시의무와 책임의 완화 / 상사법연구 19 (3)
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김영균 / 2007 / 사외이사의 책임제한ㆍ완화론에 대한 비판적 검토 / 기업법연구 21 (2) : 97 ~ 126
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
회사기회유용금지의 법리 : 미국 법원들의 중요 고려요건과 그 적용가능성
기업법연구
2007 .09
-
회사기회 이론
기업법연구
2008 .09
-
개정상법상 회사기회유용금지규정의 검토
한양법학
2011 .05
-
회사의 사업기회를 유용한 이사의 자기거래의 금지 : 개정상법안제398조제(3)항의 법리 구성 및 입법론적 검토
동아법학
2008 .08
-
현행 상법상 회사기회유용금지 규정에 관한 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구
기업법연구
2016 .09
-
회사기회유용의 법리와 상법 제397조의2
경영법률
2013 .01
-
회사기회법리에 관한 고찰
법학논총
2009 .02
-
2006년 會社法改正案의 論點
기업법연구
2006 .12
-
회사기회의 유용 및 자기거래 규제에 따른 실무적 현안과 법적 과제
기업법연구
2011 .12
-
회사기회유용금지의 법리
경영법률
2007 .01
-
영미법상 신인의무 법리와 이사의 지위
비교사법
2008 .03
-
회사기회유용의 이사회 승인시 고려요소에 관한 연구 - 신규사업기회를 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .06
-
회사의 사업기회 유용금지 법리에 관한 연구
동북아법연구
2014 .01
-
개정상법상 회사기회 유용금지 조항에 관한 소고 － 경제민주화 논의와 관련하여 －
경영법률
2013 .01
-
자기거래 대상과 그 유형의 확대에 대한 소고
일감법학
2012 .01
-
Business Source Corporate
[KIEP] 월간 KIEP 세계경제
2003 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001270846