[법학] 이사의책임(상법개정안 반영)
등록일 / 수정일- 페이지 / 형식
- 자료평가
- 구매가격
- 2008.05.19 / 2019.12.24
- 28페이지 /
hwp (아래아한글2002) - 평가한 분이 없습니다. (구매금액의 3%지급)
- 2,000원
최대 20페이지까지 미리보기 서비스를 제공합니다.
자료평가하면 구매금액의 3%지급!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
추천 연관자료
- 회사법 - 2012년 시행 상법 개정안과 관련 논문과의 비교 - 집행임원제도 도입
- [상법][상법 개정안][상법 문제점][주식교환이전]상법의 개정안, 상법의 문제점, 상법과 주식교환이전, 상법과 기업지배구조, 상법과 지배주주, 상법과 감사위원회제도, 상법과 공중접객업, 상법과 상업등기 분석
- 회사법 - 주식회사의 감사제도에 관한 연구 기업지배구조론에 관한 서설적 고찰 집행임원제도의 제한적 의무화 검토 논문의 비판
- 기업지배구조 개선과 집행임원제도의 제한적의무화에 대한 검토 요약 및 각 팀의 의견 정리
- 집행임원제의 제한적 의무화에 관한 쟁점 사항 검토
- 하고 싶은 말
- 주식회사의 지배구조중 이사의 책임에 대하여 별도로 손을 보지 않아도 될 정도로 깔끔하게 정리하였고 그동안의 논문들과는 달리 개정상법을 반영하여 현재 이사의 책임 제도의 기원과 문제점과 발전방향에 대하여 서술하였다.
- 목차
-
목 차
I. 서 언 ·····································································································1
II. 이사와 회사와의 관계 ··············································································1
III. 각국의 이사의 책임 ················································································2
1. 일본 ······································································································2
2. 미국 ······································································································2
3. 독일 ······································································································3
IV. 이사의 회사에 대한 손해배상 책임(제399조 제1항) ····································4
1. 손해배상책임 ··························································································4
2. 임무해태책임 ·························································································5
3. 자본충실의 책임 ·····················································································6
4. 책임의 소멸 ···························································································7
V. 제3자에 대한 책임(제401조) ····································································8
1. 의의(입법취지) ·······················································································8
2. 법적성질 ································································································8
3. 책임의 원인 ·························································································10
4. 책임을 지는 이사의 범위 ·······································································10
5. 제3자의 범위 ························································································11
6. 입증책임 및 책임의 소멸 ·······································································13
7. 책임의 제한(일부면제) ···········································································13
VI.업무집행관여자(사실상 이사)의 책임 (제401조의2) ····································14
1. 의의 ····································································································14
2. 사실상 이사의 범위 ···············································································15
3. 책임의 내용 ·························································································17
VII. 경영판단의 법칙···················································································19
1. 의의 ····································································································19
2. 우리나라의 학설과 판례 ·········································································19
3. 일본의 경우 ·························································································20
VIII. 배상책임보험 ·····················································································21
1. 의의 ····································································································21
2. 도입논의 ······························································································21
IX. 2006년 상법개정안의 내용(이사의 회사에 대한 책임감경) ·························22
1. 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 과실책임의 명문화(상법개정시안 제399조 제1항)·22
2. 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 감경(상법개정시안 제400조 제2항)····················22
X.결론 ·····································································································23
- 본문내용
-
이상에서 이사의 책임인 회사에 대한 책임과 제3자에 대한 책임에 대하여 살펴보았다. 상법 제399조와 제401조 및 관련규정들은 이사에 관해 일반 법률규정을 넘어 특별히 규율할 필요성에 따라 입법된 것이 분명하다. 이사는 주식회사의 기관은 아니지만 이사회의 구성원으로 또한 대표이사의 전제요건으로서 그 권한이 막대한 만큼 이사의 책임을 강화하는 방향으로 입법을 추진해 왔고 주주의 권리의식 고취에 따라 이사의 책임을 추궁하는 주주대표소송이 점차로 증가되고 있는 현실이다. 그러나 이러한 이사의 책임에 대한 규정들은 이사가 무자력인 경우 실효가 없기 때문에 책임보험제도의 도입이 필요하다. 또한 이사의 주의의무의 위반의 기준을 결정하는데 있어 경영판단의 법칙에 의한 한계가 고려되어야 한다는 점도 유의하여야 할 것이다. 상법이 회사에 대한 이사의 책임을 엄격하게 규정한 것은 이사의 위법. 부당한 행위를 억제함으로써 회사의 건전한 발전과 주주 및 채권자 등의 이익을 보호하기 위한 것이다. 그러나 이사의 책임이 지나치게 엄격하면 유능한 인재의 확보를 곤란하게 하여 이사의 경영활동을 위축시키는 결과를 초래할 수 있어 상법개정안에는 이사의 책임을 줄여주기 위하여 지금껏 학설대립이 심했던 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 과실책임을 명문화(상법개정시안 제406조의 2 제2항)하고 있으며, 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 감경으로 고의.중과실을 제외하고 최근 1년간의 보수액의 6배까지로 이사의 책임액을 제한하고 있어 이사의 경영활동을 위축시키는 결과를 줄이는 방법이라 생각된다. 그러나 현행 상법 제400조상에는 이사의 책임을 총주주의 동의로 면제 할 수 있다고 하지만 사실상 불가능하기에 문제를 제기하고 있지만 현행 상법 제400조의 회사에 대한 책임의 면제 규정은 아주 예외적인 경우의 이사의 책임을 면제해주기 위한 취지의 규정으로 주주총회의 특별결의로 면제를 허용한다면 이러한 제도의 취지와 어긋나게 이사의 책임규정을 무용화 할 수 있다는 견해에 긍정한다.
따라서 이사의 권리남용 방지를 위해 엄격한 제한과 더불어 그 책임에 대한 부담을 합리적으로 줄여주는 개정안의 내용들과 경영판단의 법칙이나 이사의 책임성립 후의 구제제도인 책임보험제도를 적극 고려 해보는 것이 바람직하다고 생각한다.
- 참고문헌
-
<참고문헌>
石山卓磨, ｢現代會社法講義｣, 成文堂, 2004.
이철송, ｢회사법강의｣, 박영사, 2003.
최기원, 「상법학신론(상)｣, 박영사.2004.
정찬형, ｢상법강의(상)｣, 2003.
김상헌, “이사의 책임에 관한 연구”, 조선대석사학위논문, 2004.
엄해윤, “주식회사 이사의 책임”, 경북대석사학위논문, 1997.
김명아, “사외이사의 법적지위와 책임의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구”, 한국외대석사학위논문, 2004.
권재열, 「경영판단의 원칙과 도입여부를 다시 논함」, 《상사법 연구》 제19권 제2호, 2000.
김영선, ｢이사의 책임보험연구｣, 삼지원, 1996.
조헌구, “이사의 제3자에 대한 책임에 관한 연구”, 건국대석사학위논문, 2004.
정찬형, “상법(회사편)개정 공청회자료”, 주제발표(1).
배용수, “주식회사의 지배구조에 관한 연구”, 발표자료.
이형규, “주식회사의 지배구조에 관한 회사법 개정시안 토론요지”, 2006년 상법개정시안.
자료평가
-
아직 평가한 내용이 없습니다.
회원 추천자료
- [국가신분등록제도]국가신분등록제도, 기업회계제도의 법적 문제, 정리해고, 비정규직근로의 법적 문제, 금융기관아웃소싱, 전자상거래의 법적 문제, 전자화폐, 전환사채의 법적 문제, 전환주식, 허위납입주식 분석
- 상법총론 - 회사법 - 개정상법의 의의와 목적 - 논문의 감사제도와 핵심
- [기업법] 집행임원제도 도입
- [재벌개혁][재벌개혁 평가][재벌개혁 사업구조][재벌개혁 중요성][재벌개혁 전망]재벌개혁의 중요성, 재벌개혁의 시각, 재벌개혁의 사업구조, 재벌개혁의 평가, 향후 재벌개혁의 당면 과제, 재벌개혁의 전망
- 경제경영 한국기업지배구조개선과 소수주주권의 강화
