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 corporate piercing doctrine is a product of the conflict between society's need to maintain the benefits of the corporate structure and the need to curb abusive uses of that structure. Incorporating for the purpose of limiting liability is accepted as one of the principle purposes of using the corporate form. Currently, maritime plaintiffs often must pierce a corporate veil if it is to recover damages. Yet Convincing a court to order piercing is both difficult and expensive.
This article begins by reviewing the different standards currently used by both the Korean and U.S. federal courts in deciding whether to permit piercing. While the question of piercing the veil is contextual, the review on both countries' legal regimes have the standards narrowed down into several categories. Especially, the recent decision in the Korean Supreme Court is said to be on the same page with U.S. maritime courts' tendency to expand the doctrine to the area of NVOCC.
Even though national courts sitting in admiralty unquestionably have the power to pierce the corporate veil, at present the unified maritime piercing doctrine is unsettled in both countries. A unified standard of piercing in maritime cases is therefore both necessary and appropriate. Once developed, the uniform standard should not be guided on a case-by-case basis, enabling a liberal common law of piercing readily justified, when applied to maritime cases.
Given the legal implications of various standards previously employed by domestic courts, the prevention of manifest injustice to third parties standard should be a feature of a unified piercing doctrine in maritime cases. This is particularly true in maritime cases where public disasters, such as damage to natural formations or oil spills, are both foreseeable and inevitable.
This article begins by reviewing the different standards currently used by both the Korean and U.S. federal courts in deciding whether to permit piercing. While the question of piercing the veil is contextual, the review on both countries' legal regimes have the standards narrowed down into several categories. Especially, the recent decision in the Korean Supreme Court is said to be on the same page with U.S. maritime courts' tendency to expand the doctrine to the area of NVOCC.
Even though national courts sitting in admiralty unquestionably have the power to pierce the corporate veil, at present the unified maritime piercing doctrine is unsettled in both countries. A unified standard of piercing in maritime cases is therefore both necessary and appropriate. Once developed, the uniform standard should not be guided on a case-by-case basis, enabling a liberal common law of piercing readily justified, when applied to maritime cases.
Given the legal implications of various standards previously employed by domestic courts, the prevention of manifest injustice to third parties standard should be a feature of a unified piercing doctrine in maritime cases. This is particularly true in maritime cases where public disasters, such as damage to natural formations or oil spills, are both foreseeable and inevitable.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 법인격부인의 법리
Ⅲ. 해상사건에서의 법인격부인
Ⅳ. 법인격부인의 확대적용
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (16)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Blumberg,Phillip I. / 1990 / The Corporate Entity in an Era of Multinational Corporations / Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 15
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Clark / 1986 / Piercing the Corporate Veil in Florida:The Requirement of ‘Improper’ Conduct / Stetson Law Review 16
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Cummings,David C. / 1967 / Disregarding the Corporate Entity:Contract Claims / Ohio State Law Journal 28
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Easterbrook,Frank H. / 1985 / Limited Liability & the Corporation / University of Chicago Law Review 52
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Pincus,William Hoffman / 1997 / Piercing The Corporate Veil in Maritime Cases / Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 28
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Clark / 1986 / Piercing the Corporate Veil in Florida:The Requirement of ‘Improper’ Conduct / Stetson Law Review 16
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Cummings,David C. / 1967 / Disregarding the Corporate Entity:Contract Claims / Ohio State Law Journal 28
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Easterbrook,Frank H. / 1985 / Limited Liability & the Corporation / University of Chicago Law Review 52
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Pincus,William Hoffman / 1997 / Piercing The Corporate Veil in Maritime Cases / Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 28
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국 회사법상의 법인격 부인론 연구
경영법률
2011 .01
-
법인격 부인론의 합리적 재구성
원광법학
2012 .01
-
법인격부인론의 역적용 : 대법원 2008.8.21. 선고 2006다62829 판결을 중심으로
기업법연구
2010 .06
-
法人格否認論에 대한 考察
경영법률
2005 .01
-
법인격부인론 비판
기업법연구
2011 .12
-
법인격부인론에 관한 국제사법적 검토
국제사법연구
2008 .12
-
중국 신 회사법상 법인격부인제도의 수용과 발전방안
비교사법
2008 .03
-
法人格의 逆否認
경영법률
2006 .01
-
중국 회사법상 법인격부인의 법리의 적용요건에 대한 고찰
외법논집
2010 .01
-
법인격부인의 요건 - 대판 2016. 4. 28, 2015 다 13690 의 평석을 겸하여 -
경영법률
2019 .01
-
해상사건 관련 법인격부인론에 대한 한국과 미국간 비교법적 연구
한국해법학회지
2007 .01
-
광주신세계사건과 모회사 이사의 충실의무 - 법인격부인론의 시각에서 본 대판 2013. 9. 12, 2011 다 57869 -
경영법률
2015 .01
-
세법상 법인격부인의 법리와 실질과세의 원칙의 관계
조세법연구
2010 .04
-
법인격부인론의 새로운 대안
기업법연구
2014 .06
-
미국 재판관할법상의 법인격부인론
국제사법연구
2016 .12
-
기업집단에서의 법인격부인론과 Enterprise Liability-Walkovszky v. Carlton 사건
법학연구
2006 .11
-
법인격부인제도와 단위범죄
비교형사법연구
2013 .01
-
중재합의의 제3자에 대한 효력
중재연구
2007 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002849067