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
Golden Shares sometimes known as 'the special right share', 'the specific share', or 'the master share' give the special shareholder an automatic power either to block the decisions of the company or to force the company to make certain decisions on specified matters, or to control the privatized company's control. It is submitted that the golden share device has its own dangers because it may be used to distort markets for corporate control or to limit the freedom of shareholders to make positive decisions on the future prospect of their company. These Golden Shares are a much debated issue since the European Court of Justice(ECJ) delivered there relevant judgements on June 4, 2002. Since 2002, the ECJ has decided six pivotal cases in which the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment were directly or indirectly restricted through the state holding of Golden Shares. Therefore, as far as EC countries are concerned, the use of Golden Shares to prevent EC foreign companies from investing in the privatized companies may be regarded as a breach of EC competition law which requires non-discrimination of member countries in investing other member countries, except for public interest reasons. As such, Golden Shares long been regarded as a public law issue and the problems have been discussed as such. Nonetheless. the issue is rather one of company law because Golden Share raises the question of equal rights conferred by shares ('one share one vote').
In Korea, the Golden Shares have been actively debated ever since Ministry of Justice proposed the 2006 Revision to Korean Commercial Code which includes introduction of class stock of veto for corporations. It is true that there are many legal problems such as the principle of shareholder equality and the government's economic intervention associated in introducing Golden Shares into Korea. Nonetheless, it will be effective for the government to retain these Golden Shares in the privatized enterprises which are still very important in the national security and economy. However. these classic Golden Shares should be permitted only if they can be justified on specified grounds or by overriding requirements of the general interests which are (a) non-discriminatory. (b) non-discretionary and (c) satisfy the principle of proportionality and (d) the principle of legal certainty. Also. regardless of listed company or not. it is deserved to adopt class stock of veto for corporations. However. it is desirable to introduce Golden Shares under the very limited conditions. based on original memorandum of association or agreement of entire shareholders.
In Korea, the Golden Shares have been actively debated ever since Ministry of Justice proposed the 2006 Revision to Korean Commercial Code which includes introduction of class stock of veto for corporations. It is true that there are many legal problems such as the principle of shareholder equality and the government's economic intervention associated in introducing Golden Shares into Korea. Nonetheless, it will be effective for the government to retain these Golden Shares in the privatized enterprises which are still very important in the national security and economy. However. these classic Golden Shares should be permitted only if they can be justified on specified grounds or by overriding requirements of the general interests which are (a) non-discriminatory. (b) non-discretionary and (c) satisfy the principle of proportionality and (d) the principle of legal certainty. Also. regardless of listed company or not. it is deserved to adopt class stock of veto for corporations. However. it is desirable to introduce Golden Shares under the very limited conditions. based on original memorandum of association or agreement of entire shareholders.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 황금주제도 일반론
Ⅲ. 황금주제도의 도입방식 및 유형
Ⅳ. 황금주에 대한 EU법원의 판결 내용 및 기준
Ⅴ. 황금주제도의 도입여부 및 입법과제
Ⅵ. 맺음말
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (53)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김순석 / 2009 / 黃金株(Golden Shares) 制度에 관한 硏究 / 비교사법 16 (1) : 267 ~ 320
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김태진 / 2008 / 주주평등원칙에 관한 소고 / 기업법연구 22 (3) : 9 ~ 52
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권종호 / 2006 / 적대적 M&A 에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점 / 기업법연구 20 (1) : 95 ~ 122
4. [기타자료] - 경제개혁연대 / 2006 / 유승민 의원의 상법개정안에 대해 국회 법제사법위원회에 반대의견제출 / 2006.12.4일 보도자료
5. [단행본] - 나동민 / 2002 / 출자금융기관의 민영화 전략 / 한국개발연구원
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김태진 / 2008 / 주주평등원칙에 관한 소고 / 기업법연구 22 (3) : 9 ~ 52
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 권종호 / 2006 / 적대적 M&A 에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점 / 기업법연구 20 (1) : 95 ~ 122
4. [기타자료] - 경제개혁연대 / 2006 / 유승민 의원의 상법개정안에 대해 국회 법제사법위원회에 반대의견제출 / 2006.12.4일 보도자료
5. [단행본] - 나동민 / 2002 / 출자금융기관의 민영화 전략 / 한국개발연구원
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
黃金株(Golden Shares) 制度에 관한 硏究
비교사법
2009 .03
-
개정상법상 종류주식에 대한 고찰
일감법학
2012 .01
-
개정 상법상 종류주식의 규정에 따른 각 유형에 관한 연구
경영법률
2011 .01
-
종류주식의 활용과 법적 과제 : 의결권제한주식을 중심으로
기업법연구
2011 .12
-
After the Golden Age: The Future of the Welfare State in the New Global Order
International Journal of Gerontological Social Welfare
2001 .12
-
차등의결권제도의 도입과 상장
기업법연구
2015 .09
-
주주평등원칙의 완화와 차등의결권주식의 도입 가능성
증권법연구
2015 .12
-
Case Studies: The ECJ Decisions on Golden Shares
유럽연구
2011 .12
-
개정상법상 종류주식을 활용한 방어수단
경영법률
2012 .01
-
디지털기술의 발달에 따른 금융부문의 공유경제 비즈니스모델 탐색
Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management
2014 .12
-
Hybrid Equity Finance법제의 평가와 과제 — 종류주식 개정 관련 이슈 —
경영법률
2012 .01
-
서울시 공유경제 활성화방안 : 숙박공유 중심
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2015 .07
-
중국회사법상 유한회사의 지분양도의 효력에 관한 제규정의 분석 및 평가
한양법학
2012 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
[사례연구ㆍ형법] 현주건조물방화치사죄, 사기죄와 자살관여죄 등의 성립여부 및 공모관계이탈과 공동정범의 성립여부
윤영철
고시계
2013
.12
이사의 책임에 관한 주요 쟁점과 법적 과제
김지환
비교사법
2013
.08
제3자 배정방식을 이용한 신주의 저가인수와 부당행위계산부인 : 2012. 3. 29. 선고 2011두29779 판결
이정란
법학연구
2013
.05
현주건조물등방화치사죄 관련 죄수, 특별형법 간의 법조경합, 도로교통법위반(음주측정불응) 등
문채규
고시계
2012
.12
黃金株(Golden Shares) 制度에 관한 硏究
金淳錫
비교사법
2009
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-018481730