LBO에 대한 정당한 규제-대법원 2004도7027 판결 비판적 검토-
Legitimate Regulation regarding Leveraged Buy․Out : Critical Analysis on Korea's Supreme Court Decision Applying Breach of Trust in Office (Criminal Code 356)
이상현(대법원)
18권 1호, 107~141쪽
초록
2000년대에 우리나라에서는 인수대상회사의 자산을 그 회사의 주식 취득을 위한 인수자 부채의 담보로 제공하는 소위 ‘차입매수(Leveraged Buy․Out: LBO)’의 인정 여부가 논란이 되어 왔다. 본 논문은 미국, 영국, 독일, 이탈리아와 일본의 법제가 차입매수에 대해 어떤 규제를 채택해 왔는지 살펴본다. 차입매수에 대해 우리 대법원도, 인수자가 회사의 담보제공에 상응하는 반대급부를 제공하지 않는 한 업무상 배임죄(형법 제356조)의 책임을 진다고 판시(2004도7027)하여 매우 엄격한 태도를 보였다. 본 논문은 이 대법원 판결을 업무상 배임죄의 구성요건 표지, 특히 임무 위배, 추정적 승낙, 손해, 고의 및 불법이득의사와 위법성조각사유인 피해자승낙을 중심으로 분석한다. LBO에 단선적으로 배임죄를 적용했을 때 기업 구조조정을 어렵게 하여 형법의 투입을 통해 확보하고자 했던 회사의 이익이 오히려 저해될 수 있으며, 상법 제625조가 오히려 적절한 규제가 될 수 있음을 지적한다. 상법 및 자본시장 관련 법제상 중요한 정보의 공개, 차입채무 한도 규제 및 금융수단을 확보할 수 있는 제도(주식저당)를 마련하는 것이 LBO의 장점과 단점을 균형 있게 고려하여 구조조정 활성화와 함께 회사의 이익을 보호할 수 있는 법정책임을 제시한다.
Abstract
Leveraged Buy․Out (LBO), which lets a target company offer its assets as security for buyer's debt incurred to purchase the shares of the target company, has both advantages and disadvantages. While the advantages of LBO are activation of M&A with less financial resources, synergy effect, re․organization of corporation, the usage of high․leveled business and financial skills, leverage effect as well as improvement of business activities, its disadvantages are the increase of corporate debt, threats to creditors of the target company, the possibility of bankruptcy, conflict of interests between shareholders and directors, and between shareholders and investors, and the potential abuse of LBO by private equity fund which pursues only for short․term gains from re․sale. Advanced market economies including the U.S., U.K, Germany, Italy and Japan, have developed case laws, regulations and statutes regarding LBOs in the civil or corporate law area. The U.S. judiciary body, once liberalizing LBO deals, has developed entire fairness doctrine for fiduciaries' liability, requiring compliance with procedural rules e.g. disclosure of material information. On the other hand, member countries in EU, which adopted strict prohibition against LBO under the Second Directive Art.23(1), gradually, however, have widened exemptions through revision of their domestic civil or corporate laws. Japan also allowed LBO by adopting Industrial Revitalization Corporation Act. The Supreme Court of Korea, on the other hand, issued a decision (2004도7027) penalyzing an LBO which turned out to be successful through purchasing an ailing company under legal management. This thesis analyzes the elements of breach of trust in office (Criminal Code Art.356), thereby proffering unique theories, such as implied approval by principal through speculative trading analogy, decision of harm in light of corporate rehabilation plan. It argues that the LBO, complied with corporate law and related procedures including full disclosure of material information, may be legitimized. The application of breach of trust in office (cc.356) to LBO will cause more harms to corporations than benefits as potential benefits from restructuring the ailing company is driven away. The maintenance of balance between possible advantages and disadvantages of LBO can be more effectively achieved through the application of corporate law and enactment of financial law including share․mortgage, limitation of financing to a certain level, and minimum owned․capital․input requirement.
- 발행기관:
- 한국규제학회
- 분류:
- 행정학