상장폐지의 효력을 다투는 소송에서 문제 되는 실무적 쟁점에 대한 고찰

Involuntary delisting from the Korea Stock Exchange (“KRX”) give rise to companies and their shareholders to file lawsuits challenging the validity of delisting as it boils down to survival. A number of related judicial precedents have been accumulated since such type of lawsuits began emerging from the early 2000s. Key legal issues are classified into three categories: (i) legitimacy of the lawsuits; (ii) effectiveness of regulations that serve as the basis for delisting; and (iii) interpretation and application of said regulations. Irrespective of the aforementioned issues, courts have been known to render judgment that KRX’s delisting decision was justifiable. Nonetheless, courts have made consistent efforts to provide relief to companies adversely affected by unfair delisting, such as Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1753 (Choongnam Spinning Co., Ltd. vs. KRX case), thereby having contributed to enhancing fairness of the delisting system. As a last resort, lawsuits challenging the validity of delisting are instigated to realize the balance of power between KRX and companies, and to provide relief to companies damaged by delisting. In order to render fair verdicts going forward, courts need to shift attention from run-of-the-mill cases to exceptional, thought-provoking cases and try to understand the situation of delisted companies.