주식매수선택권의 부여와 그 취소에 관한 법적 고찰- 신라젠 스톡옵션 사건을 중심으로 -

In the subject of target judgment, first, in light of the plaintiff's position, it became a question of which status was granted to the stock options under the 「Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses」. And second, in the case of venture companies, which are pharmaceutical companies such as the defendant, the specificity of the new drug development process in granting and canceling the grant of stock options became a problem. These problems are related to 「Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses」, because the category of persons who can grant stock options is broader than that of 「Commercial Act」, so it can be granted to outsiders as well. It occurs because the venture company can cancel it at will. The reason for giving special exceptions to stock options under the 「Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses」 is to contribute to the development of the national industry through the promotion of venture companies. Nevertheless, as can be seen from the case of the target judgment and similar judgments, a case in which a venture company grants stock options to an external expert while setting the grounds for cancellation or exercise conditions too favorable to the venture company, or arbitrarily interpreting the reasons or conditions is occurring. On the other hand, the target judgment considered new drug development process and reviewed whether the plaintiff intentionally or grossly negligently caused damage to the defendant as a reason for canceling the grant of stock options, it broke the practice of pharmaceutical companies bearing the risk of failing to develop new drugs on researchers. Therefore, the conclusion of the target judgment is reasonable in terms of sanctions through the interpretation of legal acts for cases of abusing the stock options of venture companies. However, in the criminal aspect, the current Supreme Court's judgment on breach of trust requires that the typical and essential content of the relationship between the parties is to protect or manage the property of another person based on the trust relationship between them. It seems difficult to satisfy the elements of the offense of breach of trust because it is difficult to recognize the status of a person who handles the affairs of stock options to the CEO or directors of the company.