이사의 선관주의의무와 그 위반의 효과－ 대판 2005. 10. 28, 2003 다 69638 에 대한 평석을 겸하여 －
The Director's Duty of Care and the Effect of Its Breach - Primarily Commenting the Samsung Electronic's Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Sentenced by Korean Supreme Court in 28th October 2005, Docket Nr. 2003 Da 69638 -
김정호(고려대학교)
28권 1호, 1~35쪽
초록
본 논문에서 필자는 2005년에 선고된 삼성전자(주) 주주대표소송사건을 평석하고 있다. 이 사건은 고의, 중과실, 경과실 등 선관주의의무의 주관적 구성요건을 모두 망라하고 있다. 뇌물공여 부분에서는 고의가, 삼성종합화학의 주식매각에 대해서는 중과실이, 그리고 이천전기의 인수에 있어서는 피고들의 경과실이 각 확인되었다. 대법원은 고의의 법령위반시에는 경영판단원칙의 적용이나 이사의 책임제한을 시행하지 않았다. 삼성종합화학의 주식처분에서는 피고 이사들의 중과실을 인정하였으나 회사가 입은 손해액의 5분의 1로 책임을 감경하였다. 끝으로 이천전기의 인수 부분에서는 제 1 심과 달리 원심과 대법원은 피고 이사들의 중과실을 부정한 후 경영판단원칙을 적용하여 원고의 손해배상청구를 기각하였다. 본 논문에서는 특히 상법상 경영판단원칙에 대한 성문화의 필요성 내지 당위성을 생각해 보았고 필자는 그 필요성은 그리 크지 않다고 보았다. 나아가 필자는 이사가 중과실인 경우에도 개개 사건의 정황에 따라서는 책임감경의 필요성을 부정할 수 없다고 보았다. 그 결과 상법 제 400조 2항 단서상 주관적 책임제한조각사유인 ‘고의/중과실’ 중 ‘중과실’ 부분에 대해서는 이를 ‘고의에 준하는 경우’로 대체하는 상법개정의 필요성을 주장한다. 끝으로 피고 이사진들의 법령위반부분에 대해서는 성실의무(duty of good faith)라는 틀속에서 회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 생각해 보았다.
Abstract
The Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. shareholder derivative litigation in the year of 2005 dealt with the legal problems surrounding the director's duty of care and business judgment rule, encompassing thereby all levels of subjective elements, required for their liability to company, that is to say, the intentional misconduct, gross and normal negligence. This litigation covered furthermore the problems of limiting directors' liability to their company and the duty of good faith in corporate law. Due to the overwhelming status of Samsung Group in Korea, it provoked a nationwide attention and made lots of comments in law society and mass media. The author tried in this article to look back and analyse some relevant questions surrounding this litigation. This was the shareholder's derivative litigation instituted by shareholders of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., claiming in especially the following three points. The 22 shareholder plaintiffs, including Mr. Wonsoon Park, the present mayor of the City of Seoul and the then managing director of a non-governmental organisation (People's Participation Alliance), claimed at first that the directors of Samsung Electronics. Co. Ltd., damaged the company by acquiring the Icheon Electricity Co. Ltd., breaching their duty of care gross negligently, without any in-depth discussion and without any sufficient consideration on the then acquisition plan. The Suwon District Court decided in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed. The appellate Court, Seoul High Court, turned down the lawsuit applying the business judgment rule. The Korean Supreme Court affirmed that. The second issue of this litigation was the damage claim related with the sell -off of the shares of Samsung Chemicals, Co. Ltd. to the affiliated companies within the Samsung Group. The courts confirmed, in all instances, the defendants' gross negliegence, in consequence that the business judgment rule could not be applied and the directors should compensate the total damage in the amount of 62.6 billion Korean Won. But the Seoul High Court tried to limit the defendants' liability to one fifth, 12 billion Korean Won. The Supreme Court of Korea confirmed it. The third and last issue of this case was related with the bribery to the then President of Korea, Mr. Noh Tae-woo. The plaintiffs said, that the defendant violated the duty to manage the company within the boundaries set by the local law and jurisdiction. In this case neither the business judgment rule nor the limitation of liability could be applied or implemented. The author explored furthermore in this article to find some possible paths to introduce the business judgment rule in Korea. He also tried to show the differences between s. 400 (2) KCC(Korean Commercial Code) and s. 102 (b) (7) DGCL(Delaware General Corporation Law). At last he tried to analyse the concept of director's duty of good faith in corporate law.
- 발행기관:
- 한국경영법률학회
- 분류:
- 법학