1성균관대학교 주주의 대표소송은 회사가 이사에 대한 책임추궁을 게을리 할 경우 소수주주가 회사를 위하 여 이사를 상대로 제기하는 소송이다. 미국에서는 대표소송의 제기가 매우 활성화되어 있고, 이에 따라 남소에 대한 대책이 중요 관심사인 반면, 한국에서는 아직 대표소송이 제기되는 사례가 많지 않다. 본고에서는 먼저 미국 회사법상 대표소송을 상법상 대표소송과의 비교를 통하여 살펴보고, 상법상 대표소송의 단독주주권화의 필요성을 제시한다. 미국에서 주주가 대표소송을 제기하기 위한 전반적인 절차는 다음과 같다. 주주는 회사의 이사, 임원 또는 회사와 계약관계에 있는 제3자를 상대로 회사에 대한 의무를
위반하여 회사에 손해를 입힌 당사자를 상대로 하는 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 여기서 주주는 의결권신탁, 명부상의 주주가 아닌 실질주주를 포함한다. 대표소송의 원고는 문제된 부정행위 당시에 주주의 지위에 있어야 한다. 미국에서는 회사가 대표소송에서 명목상의 주주로서 불가결한 당사자로 되지만, 소송을 주도하지는 않는다. 대표소송은 서면에 의한 제소청구를 한 후가 아니면 제기할 수 없다. 피고의 신청에 의하여 대표소송을 제기한 원고들에게 변호사 보수를 포함한 합리적인 소송비용을 위한 담보의 제공을 명한다. 이사회로부터 위임받은 특별소송위원회가 경영판단원칙의 적용요건을 갖춘 상황에서 이사, 임원을 상대로 하는 소를 유 지하지 않기로 결정한 경우 대표소송은 각하된다. 대표소송은 법원의 승인 없이 화해로 종결될 수 없다. 대표소송의 승소로 인한 이익은 전부 회사에 귀속된다. 대표소송 종결시, 원고가 승소하여 회사에 실질적인 이익이 발생한 경우 법원은 회사로 하여금 원고에게 변호사 보수를 포함한
합리적인 비용을 지급하도록 명할 수 있고, 피고가 승소한 경우 법원은 원고의 소제기가 정당한 이유 없이 또는 부당한 목적으로 제기되거나 유지된 것으로 인정되면 원고에게 변호사 보수를 포함한 합리적인 소송비용을 피고에게 지급하도록 명할 수 있다. 대표소송에 관한 상법과 미국 회사법상의 법리면에서는 큰 차이가 없고 유사한 절차가 대부분이지만, 상법상 대표소송은 미국 회사법상 대표소송과 달리 소수주주권의 대상이라는 점에 근본적인 차이가 있다. 상법상 대표소송이 활성화되려면 대표소송제기권을 단독주주권으로 변경할 필요가 있고, 이로 인한 남소방지책으로 미국의 특별소송위원회제도의 도입을 검토할 필요가 있다. A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the shareholder’s own behalf, but on behalf of the
corporation. The overall procedure in the U.S. to file a derivative suit by a shareholder is usually as follows. The shareholder may brings an action against the parties allegedly violated a duty owed to the corporation causing harm to the corporation, either fiduciary duties owed by corporate directors or officers, or obligations of a third party pursuant to a contract with the corporation. Shareholder includes a beneficial owner whose shares are held in a voting trust or held by a nominee on
the beneficial owner’s behalf. A shareholder may not commence or maintain a derivative proceeding unless the he or she was a shareholder of the corporation at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains. In a derivative suit the corporation is named as a nominal defendant and is an indispensable party but does not normally exercise control over the suit. No shareholder may commence a derivative proceeding until a written demand has been made upon the corporation to take suitable
action. Shareholder’s derivative suit shall be dismissed, as special litigation committee appointed by board of directors functioned effectively in a way that fully satisfied prerequisites for application of business judgment rule when it determined not to pursue action against directors and officers. A derivative proceeding may not be settled without the court’s approval. Where a derivative action is brought for the benefit of a going corporation, the whole recoverable amount must be decreed to
be paid to the corporation. On termination of the derivative proceeding the court may order the corporation to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses (including counsel fees) incurred in the proceeding if it finds that the proceeding has resulted in a substantial benefit to the corporation. Under the Korean Commercial Code, only the minority shareholders holding no less than 1% of the total outstanding shares may file a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. The abolition of minimum
percentage ownership requirement for commencing a derivative proceeding is highly recommended. The introduction of special litigation committee to the Korean Commercial Code is also recommendable to avoid the abuse of derivative suit by the abolition of the above requirement. A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the shareholder’s own behalf, but on behalf of the corporation. The overall procedure in the U.S. to file a derivative
suit by a shareholder is usually as follows. The shareholder may brings an action against the parties allegedly violated a duty owed to the corporation causing harm to the corporation, either fiduciary duties owed by corporate directors or officers, or obligations of a third party pursuant to a contract with the corporation. Shareholder includes a beneficial owner whose shares are held in a voting trust or held by a nominee on the beneficial owner’s behalf. A shareholder may not commence or
maintain a derivative proceeding unless the he or she was a shareholder of the corporation at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains. In a derivative suit the corporation is named as a nominal defendant and is an indispensable party but does not normally exercise control over the suit. No shareholder may commence a derivative proceeding until a written demand has been made upon the corporation to take suitable action. Shareholder’s derivative suit shall be dismissed, as
special litigation committee appointed by board of directors functioned effectively in a way that fully satisfied prerequisites for application of business judgment rule when it determined not to pursue action against directors and officers. A derivative proceeding may not be settled without the court’s approval. Where a derivative action is brought for the benefit of a going corporation, the whole recoverable amount must be decreed to be paid to the corporation. On termination of the derivative
proceeding the court may order the corporation to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses (including counsel fees) incurred in the proceeding if it finds that the proceeding has resulted in a substantial benefit to the corporation. Under the Korean Commercial Code, only the minority shareholders holding no less than 1% of the total outstanding shares may file a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. The abolition of minimum percentage ownership requirement for commencing a derivative
proceeding is highly recommended. The introduction of special litigation committee to the Korean Commercial Code is also recommendable to avoid the abuse of derivative suit by the abolition of the above requirement. 키워드열기/닫기 버튼, , , , , , , derivative suit, contemporaneous ownership, continuing ownership, double derivative suit, demand on the board, business judgment rule, special litigation committee, intervention 피인용 횟수
인용현황 |
Action suit 차이 - Action suit chai
관련 게시물
저작권 © 2024 ko.apacode Inc.
