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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Directors under the Commercial Act of Korea are appointed by an ordinary resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Directors, as members of the board or directors, have the authority to administer the affairs of the company. Therefore, the remuneration of the directors, because it is being paid for operation of the company’s business, should be maintained appropriately within a reasonable range in consideration of the business performance and the financial state of the company.
However, as excessive remuneration for directors of financial institutions was given as one of the causes for the 2008 financial crisis, developed countries have been introducing legislation to regulate executive remuneration, including for directors. The direction of legislation on regulations for director remuneration has mainly turned towards public disclosure. The Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) of 2010 in the USA, the 2009 Act in Germany on the appropriateness of director remuneration (Das Gesetz zur Angemessemheit der Vorstandvergutung), and the Companies Act of the UK and related regulations are representative examples. In following the same trend, Korea’s Commercial Act is the basis for regulation of director remuneration, and the Capital Market Act and subordinate legislation has regulations on public disclosure.
Accordingly, this article analyzes the difference between the public disclosure of director remuneration in the Corporate Act, the Capital Market Act, and regulations of the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea and legislation in developed countries including the many changes that have been made with respect to pubic disclosure of director remuneration from the introduction in the UK in 2006 of the Corporate Act to the regulations of 2013 (The Large and Medium-sized Companies and Group (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2013). Then, the implications for legislation in Korea are provided.
The significance of these implications is that they can be used to reduce any mistakes in future legislation. However, there are differences between Korea and the UK in the establishment and development processes of companies and also in the operation and application of corporate law. Therefore, although UK legislation can be applicable to Korea, it is desirable for it to be introduced selectively by recognizing accurately those parts that are applicable and those that are not applicable to Korea.
However, as excessive remuneration for directors of financial institutions was given as one of the causes for the 2008 financial crisis, developed countries have been introducing legislation to regulate executive remuneration, including for directors. The direction of legislation on regulations for director remuneration has mainly turned towards public disclosure. The Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) of 2010 in the USA, the 2009 Act in Germany on the appropriateness of director remuneration (Das Gesetz zur Angemessemheit der Vorstandvergutung), and the Companies Act of the UK and related regulations are representative examples. In following the same trend, Korea’s Commercial Act is the basis for regulation of director remuneration, and the Capital Market Act and subordinate legislation has regulations on public disclosure.
Accordingly, this article analyzes the difference between the public disclosure of director remuneration in the Corporate Act, the Capital Market Act, and regulations of the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea and legislation in developed countries including the many changes that have been made with respect to pubic disclosure of director remuneration from the introduction in the UK in 2006 of the Corporate Act to the regulations of 2013 (The Large and Medium-sized Companies and Group (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2013). Then, the implications for legislation in Korea are provided.
The significance of these implications is that they can be used to reduce any mistakes in future legislation. However, there are differences between Korea and the UK in the establishment and development processes of companies and also in the operation and application of corporate law. Therefore, although UK legislation can be applicable to Korea, it is desirable for it to be introduced selectively by recognizing accurately those parts that are applicable and those that are not applicable to Korea.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 우리법제상 이사보수공시규제
Ⅲ. 영국법제상 이사보수공시규제
Ⅳ. 비교법적 분석 및 입법적 시사점
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
주식회사 이사의 보수연동형 손해배상한도액 설정제도
비교사법
2017 .08
-
호주의 이사 보수 규제에 관한 연구－ 우리법의 문제점과의 비교를 중심으로 －
안암법학
2015 .01
-
명목상 이사·감사의 보수청구권 인정여부에 관한 해석 - 대법원 2015. 7. 23 선고 2014다236311 판결 -
금융법연구
2015 .01
-
コーポレートガバナンス⋅コ－ドのもとでの 役員報酬等に關する稅制改正の動向と課題
일감법학
2018 .01
-
이사의 보수결정 절차에 관한 고찰
법과정책
2017 .01
-
영국 회사법상 이사의 보수규제 변천사 - 기관간 권한 배분과 주주권 행사를 중심으로 -
기업법연구
2022 .06
-
기업 환경 변화에 따른 이사의 보수 설계와 과제 - 일본의 성과연동형 보수 논의 동향을 포함하여 -
기업법연구
2022 .03
-
이사의 보수의 적정성 -[대상판결] 대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015다213308 판결-
외법논집
2016 .01
-
영국의 상장회사 이사 보수규제에 관한 연구 : 우리법의 문제점과의 비교를 중심으로
기업법연구
2015 .12
-
이사보수규제에 관한 연구 - 독일 주식법을 중심으로
강원법학
2020 .10
-
지배주주인 이사의 보수 통제
외법논집
2020 .01
-
주식회사 임원 보상의 실무상 쟁점
사법
2021 .09
-
이사 보수에 대한 통일적 평가 및 규율의 필요성 - 사용인겸무이사(업무집행이사)의 보수에 대한 상법 및 세법상 논의를 중심으로 -
저스티스
2021 .06
-
독일의 상장회사 이사 보수 규제에 관한 연구 -우리법의 문제점과의 비교를 중심으로-
외법논집
2015 .01
-
임원보수와 이사책임감면 관련 법률 개정안에 대한 검토
상사판례연구
2016 .01
-
주식회사 이사의 보수 규제- 대법원 2016. 1. 28. 선고 2014다11888 판결을 중심으로 -
원광법학
2016 .01
-
이사의 회사정보수집권
한양법학
2021 .08
-
임원의 보수에 관한 규제 방향
경영법률
2015 .01
-
이사의 퇴직금 중간정산을 위한 회사법상 요건에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2019. 7. 4. 선고 2017다17436 판결을 중심으로 -
기업법연구
2019 .09
-
우리는 이사회에게 무엇을 기대할 것인가 - 이사회 실패 현상을 극복하기 위한 대안으로서 법인이사론을 중심으로 -
경영법률
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-001877589