메뉴 건너뛰기
소속 기관 / 학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
고객센터 ENG
주제분류

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학위논문
저자정보

(창원대학교, 창원대학교 대학원)

지도교수
오창석
발행연도
저작권
창원대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.

이용수2

표지

초록· 키워드

상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지
정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
다중대표소송제도는 모자회사 관계 또는 완전모자회사 관계에서 회사의 소수
주주가 위법한 행위를 한 자회사 이사의 책임추궁을 위해 소를 제기하는 주주대
표소송에서 원고적격을 모회사의 소수주주까지 확대한 제도이다. 자회사의 범위
를 어느 단계까지 인정하느냐에 따라 삼중대표소송, 사중대표소송으로 불리는데
이러한 모든 소송을 총칭하여 다중대표소송이라 한다.
다중대표소송제도는 영미법계에서는 오래전부터 판례가 많이 형성되어 왔지
만, 대륙법계에서는 거의 찾아볼 수 없다. 이 제도가 미국에서 인정되고 발전한
배경에는 복잡한 기업구조에 대한 현실적인 인식과 미국의 형평법상의 원칙이라
고 말해진다. 하지만 다중대표소송제도는 각 사례마다 최선의 결론을 도출하려고
법리를 달리하고 있어 이를 뒷받침하는 이론적 근거는 아직 정립되어 있지 않고
명확하지 않다는 것이다.
다중대표소송제도는 일본, 미국 이외에 성문법으로 입법화하고 있는 국가는 몇
몇 국가에 불과하고, 영국과 독일은 다중대표소송제도를 명문으로 규정하는 조항
도 없으며 주주대표소송을 제기하더라도 법원의 허가를 요건으로 하고 있다. 프
랑스와 독일은 아직 다중대표소송제도의 도입과 관련한 논의는 없고, 프랑스에서
부대사소를 이용한 판례에서 다중대표소송을 인정하였다고 해석하는 사례와 독
일의 “ITT사건” 외에는 거의 찾아볼 수 없다. 일본도 1990년 후반부터 다중대표
소송제도의 도입 논의가 시작되어 2014년에 회사법 개정을 통해 완전모자회사
관계에 한정하여 도입하였지만 도입 이후 현재까지 소가 제기된 경우는 없다고
한다.
우리나라에서도 다중대표소송의 상법상 허용 여부에 대한 학설상 찬반에 대해
논의가 있어오다, 우리나라 최초로 2003년에 서울고등법원이 다중대표소송의 도
입 가능성을 판례로 확인하였으나 대법원은 원고적격이 없다는 이유로 각하하였다. 이것을 계기로 다중대표소송제도의 도입과 관련하여 해석론뿐만 아니라 입법
론에 대한 논의가 본격적으로 진행되었다. 2006년에 법무부의 입법(안)을 시작으
로 2013년 경제민주화 관련하여 박근혜 정부의 국정과제에 포함되면서 2013년
법무부 입법(안)과 2017년 20대 국회까지 대략 16건의 법안 발의가 있었다. 이러
한 논의 과정들을 본다면 우리나라에서도 다중대표소송이 도입될 것으로 예상되
기 때문에 보다 많은 연구가 필요할 것이다.
우리나라에서 다중대표소송제도가 강조되는 이유는 대기업집단에서 회사기회
유용과 일감몰아주기 등으로 사익추구행위가 빈번하게 발생하고 있으며, 지주회
사가 많이 증가하는 추세에 지주회사의 주주 보호제도가 상대적으로 미흡하다는
점 등으로 도입 필요성이 제기되고 있다.
하지만 우리나라 상법 체계에서 다중대표소송을 도입한다는 것은 그리 쉬운 작
업은 아니라고 생각된다. 여태까지 입법의 논의과정은 찬반론에만 치우친 경향이
있었고, 제시된 입법(안)들도 다중대표소송의 특성을 고려하여 세밀하게 진행하
면서 본질과 한계에 대한 충분한 검토과정이 있어야 함에도 이러한 과정들이 많
이 부족한 것 같다.
우리나라 다중대표소송을 도입함에 주요 쟁점사항으로 모회사와 자회사의 지
분요건 문제로 일본과 같이 완전모자회사 관계가 아니면 형식적인 기준으로
30% 이상이나 50% 이상의 지분으로 할 것인가에 대한 문제가 있다. 원고주주의
모회사에 대한 지분요건을 단독주주권으로 하자는 주장과 소수주주권으로 하자
는 주장도 있다. 자회사의 인정범위를 이중이냐 삼중으로 할 것인가에 대한 문제
도 있다.
다중대표소송의 도입 실효성 확보를 위해서도 회계장부 열람·등사 청구권의 인
정범위와 남소방지를 위한 대책으로 경영판단의 원칙과 특별소송위원회 제도의
도입과 관련하여서도 면밀하게 검토되어야 할 것이다. 또 지금까지 주주대표소송
과 다중대표소송의 관점이 손해회복기능이 중심이었다면 이제는 다중대표소송제
도의 도입설계를 이사의 위법행위를 바로잡고 소의 제기를 당할 수 있다는 인식
으로 경영진 스스로가 위법행위를 억제하도록 하는 위법방지기능에 중점을 두고
제도를 도입한다면 실효성 문제도 해결될 것으로 생각된다. 아울러 이렇게 되려
면 다중대표소송제도의 적용범위를 보다 넓게 하여야 할 것이다. 하지만 지분율
에 의한 형식적인 기준으로는 다양한 회사의 지배를 규율할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라
다양한 조건을 입법적으로 규정하기도 어려운 점이 많다고 보면 판례법으로 도
입하여 사안별로 해결하는 방법도 하나의 방안이 된다고 생각한다.
우리나라 기업은 대기업 총수들의 지배 아래에 있는 독특한 기업구조이기 때문
에 다중대표소송제도가 상법(법 체제)에 도입된다면 어떤 형태로 도입하는 것이
합당하고 구체화해야 할 것인지에 대해 생각해보고자 한다. 따라서 다중대표소송
제도의 특성, 도입 찬반에 대한 논의와 입법례, 주주대표소송과의 관계를 활성화
함으로써 다중대표소송의 실효성 확보 방안에 대해 살펴보았다. 또 다중대표소송
의 도입 필요성과 현재까지 제시된 입법(안)을 검토하여 다중대표소송제도 설계
시 해결해야 할 쟁점과 남소방지 대책으로 경영판단의 원칙과 특별소송위원회
제도 대해서도 논의하였다. 이를 기반으로 하여 입법(안)을 제시하였고 우리나라
다중대표소송의 합리적인 입법(안)을 도출하는 데 도움이 되고자 하였다.

목차

  1. 제1장 서론 ··················································································································· 1
    제1절 연구목적 ······································································································· 1
    제2절 연구의 방법 및 범위 ················································································· 4
    제2장 다중대표소송제도 현황 및 기본적 고찰 ···················································· 7
    제1절 서 설 ············································································································· 7
    제2절 주주대표소송의 개념 및 현황 ······························································ 10
    I. 주주대표소송의 개념 ················································································· 10
    1. 주주대표소송의 의의 및 연혁 ······························································ 10
    2. 우리나라 주주대표소송의 도입 ···························································· 13
    3. 주주대표소송의 변화과정 ······································································ 15
    II. 주주대표소송 현황과 한계 ········································································ 18
    1. 주주대표소송 현황 ·············································································· 19
    2. 원고의 특성에 따른 소송 현황 및 판결 현황 ··································· 21
    3. 주주대표소송의 한계 ·············································································· 28
    제3절 다중대표소송의 개념 및 도입 찬반 논의 ············································ 30
    I. 다중대표소송의 개념 ················································································· 30
    II. 다중대표소송제도 도입 찬반 논의 ·························································· 33
    1. 다중대표소송 도입의 긍정적 견해 ······················································ 33
    2. 다중대표소송 도입의 부정적 견해 ······················································ 42
    III. 우리나라의 판례와 학설 ··········································································· 49
    1. 대법원 2004. 9. 23. 선고 2003다49221 판결. ································ 49
    2. 다중대표소송제도의 학설 ······································································ 57
    IV. 상법 개정논의 경과 및 적용요건의 중요성 ········································· 67
    제3장 각국의 다중대표소송제도 입법례 ······························································ 70
    제1절 서설 ············································································································· 70
    제2절 미국 ············································································································· 72
    1. 다중대표소송의 연혁과 법리 ···································································· 72
    2. 미국 다중대표소송의 요건 ········································································ 83
    3. 미국의 판례와 입법 현황 ·········································································· 91
    제3절 영국 ·········································································································· 102
    1. 보통법상 대표소송과 판례 ······································································ 102
    2. 2006년 회사법 개정과 다중대표소송 ··················································· 107
    제4절 독일 ·········································································································· 110
    1. 독일의 기업구조와 소송강제절차 ·························································· 110
    2. 2005년 주식법 개정과 대표소송제도 도입 ·········································· 113
    3. 콘체른 기업에서 소수주주 보호와 판례 ·············································· 116
    제5절 프랑스 ······································································································ 120
    1. 회사소권의 개별적 행사 ·········································································· 120
    2. 다중대표소송의 도입 여부와 판례 ························································ 122
    제6절 일본 ·········································································································· 128
    1. 일본 다중대표소송제도의 도입 논의와 판례 ······································· 128
    2. 다중대표소송의 도입 과정과 입법례 ···················································· 132
    3. 회사법상 다중대표소송 ············································································ 139
    제4장 다중대표소송제도의 도입 관련 논점과 입법(안) ·································· 144
    제1절 다중대표소송제도의 도입 필요성과 각종 입법(안) ·························· 144
    I. 다중대표소송의 도입 필요성 ································································· 144
    1. 모·자회사 운영방법의 입법보완 ························································· 144
    2. 기업집단의 사익추구행위의 구제방법 ·············································· 154
    II. 다중대표소송제도 도입 입법(안) ··························································· 161
    1. 법무부 입법개정(안)과 그 특징 ························································· 162
    2. 국회 입법개정(안) 내용과 특징 ························································· 165
    제2절 다중대표소송제도의 도입 시 쟁점사항 ·············································· 174
    I. 모회사의 자회사에 대한 지분요건 ························································· 174
    1. 자회사 지분비율에 관한 검토 ···························································· 174
    2. 지분요건에 대한 검토 ·········································································· 178
    II. 대상 자회사 포함 범위 요건 ·································································· 179
    1. 자회사 범위와 인정단계 ······································································ 179
    2. 자회사 범위의 검토 ·············································································· 182
    III. 주주의 제소자격에 관한 요건 ······························································· 184
    1. 각종 개정(안)과 학계의 동향 ····························································· 184
    2. 제소요건의 비율에 따른 상장회사 최소지분시가 분석 ················· 187
    IV. 기타의 쟁점사항 ······················································································ 190
    1. 사전 제소청구 절차 쟁점 ···································································· 190
    2. 주식소유시점과 소송비용의 쟁점 ······················································ 192
    3. 주식교환·이전에 의한 원고적격 계속인정 쟁점 ······························ 194
    제3절 다중대표소송의 실효성 확보 및 남소방지책 ···································· 197
    I. 다중 회계장부 열람청구권 제도의 도입 ··············································· 197
    1. 상법상 회계장부 열람청구권 ······························································ 197
    2. 다중 회계장부 열람청구권 ·································································· 198
    II. 남소방지를 위한 제도 정비 ·································································· 201
    1. 다중대표소송에서의 경영판단의 원칙 ·············································· 201
    2. 특별소송위원회 제도 ············································································ 208
    제4절 다중대표소송제도 도입을 위한 제언 ·················································· 212
    제5장 결 론 ············································································································ 218
    참고문헌 ··················································································································· 221
    Abstract ·················································································································· 239

최근 본 자료

전체보기