미국 회사법상의 법인격 부인론 연구

A significant principle of the modern U.S. corporate law is that shareholders in a corporation are not liable for the obligations of the corporation beyond the capital invested by them. This means that the corporation is a legal entity that is separate from its shareholders. Therefore, the legal form of the corporation allows shareholders to refrain from worrying about their personal liability beyond their invested money. This is called limited liability of shareholders, and this principle has been accepted in most U.S. states since the mid-19th century. However, there are several situations when this principle is not applicable. When the application of the limited liability rule results in inequitable results, the courts apply the equitable doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” to disregard the separateness of the corporations and shareholders. The “piercing the corporate veil” doctrine allows a plaintiff to impose corporate legal liability on shareholders. In the U.S., several scholars regard the principle of “piercing the corporate veil” as complex and vague. In order to clarify the logic behind this principle, I hold my opinion that the “legal entity factor” and “limited liability factor” can be lifted simultaneously in corporate piercing cases. First, within the logic of this doctrine, we can explain the cases that show “piercing the legal entity” and “piercing the limited liability” simultaneously. Second, we can easily explain the reason why the limited liability of directors and officers can be pierced. Third, we can understand why the “reverse piercing” is not essentially different from the “piercing the corporate veil” doctrine.