메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
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)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국경영법률학회 경영법률 경영법률 제25권 제2호
발행연도
2015.1
수록면
87 - 119 (33page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The decision of Korean Supreme Court on the Shinsegae Shareholder’s Derivative Litigation last year gave corporate lawyers in Korea a tremendous opportunity to review the director’s duty of loyalty in 100% parent-subsidiary relation. This case handled all the important sectors of the duty of loyalty, namely the duty not to compete with the corporation, the duty not to undertake any self-dealing without pre- appoval of the board and the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities. In especially this case offered a good playground to connect the director’s duty of loyalty with the veil-piercing doctrine. The parent, Shinsegae Inc. owned all the shares of the subsidairy, Kwangju Shinsegae Inc. One of the directors of the parent, Mr. Chung Yong-Jin, subscribed all the new shares, by which the wholly owned subsidiary undertook an emergent capital raising in the wake of asian financial crisis in the year of 1998. The plaintiff, the People’s Alliance for the Economic Reform (Kyung-Jae-Gae-Hyuk–Yeon-Dae) et al., claimed that the parent was damaged due to the transaction between the defendant director and the subsidiary, so that the defendants should compensate the damage. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of Seoul High Court, in which the Court had rejected all the claims of the plaintiffs. The author tries in this comment the veil-piercing of the subsidiary. In relation to the duty not to compete with the corporation, he wants to pierce the formalized legal entity of the wholly-owned subsidiary, Kwangju Shinsegae Inc., and will negate the existence of the require- ment “other corporation with the same business sector” in section 397 Korean Commercial Code, juxtaposing the possibility of teleological interpretation of the same section. In relation to the duty not to undertake any self-dealing with the corpation without pre-approval of the board, he will also try to disregard the legal entity of subsidiary, in consequence that the defendant director should have requested the board of parent to approve the transaction before subscribing the new shares.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (20)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0