다중대표소송에 관한 입법론적 고찰 (Legislative Consideration on Multiple Derivative Suits)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국법정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법과정책연구 / 14권 / 2호 / 573 ~ 601페이지
· 저자명 : 권상로, 한도율

초록

우리나라 상법은 발행주식총수의 100분의 1 이상의 주식을 소유하고 있는 주주는 대표소송을 제기할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 제소권자의 주주의 개념에 지배회사의 주주 를 포함시킬 수 있다는 견해가 등장한 것이다. 대법원은 우리나라가 성문법주의 국가이기 때문에 명문의 규정이 없는 다중대표소송을 허용하지 않았다. 이 판결로 인하여 다중대표소송의 입법화가 주장되었다.
일본에서는 지배회사 주주의 주주권 축소와 관련하여 지배회사의 주주보호의 문제가 대두되었다. 해결책의 하나로서 다중대표소송의 도입이 진행되고 있다. 일본은 회사법 개정시안에 다중대표소송제도의 취지는 살리면서 남소를 막기 위한 여러 규정을 두고 있다. 다중대표소송제도의 도입에 대한 경제계의 거센 반발을 잠재우기 위해서는 우리나라와 경제적으로 비슷한 상황에 있는 일본에서의 논의와 회사법 개정시안을 참고할 필요가 있다.
우리나라의 경우 재벌로 인해 기업집중의 현상이 매우 심하다. 그 결과 자회사의 경영의 실패가 모회사 및 그 주주에게 큰 손해를 발생시킬 수 있기 때문에 모회사 주주의 이익의 보호를 위해서는 다중대표소송을 입법할 필요가 있다. 다중대표소송의 적용대상은 모회사가 자회사의 주식을 100% 소유한 경우로 한정하여야 하며 주식소유에 의한 지배종속관계가 중첩될 경우 자회사뿐만 아니라 손회사, 증손회사 등에게도 다중대표소송을 허용하여야 한다. 그리고 다중대표소송의 제소요건과 관련하여 다중대표소송의 남소를 방지하기 위해서는 소수주주권으로 정할 필요가 있다. 다중대표소송도 단순대표소송의 경우와 마찬가지로 제소전 절차로서 모회사의 주주는 모회사와 자회사에 대하여 이사의 책임을 추궁할 소의 제기를 청구하여야 한다.

영어초록

Even if a holding company and subsidiary is economically operated by forming a single entity, shareholders of the holding company, and not the shareholders of the subsidiary, can not bring a derivative lawsuit against directors of the subsidiary because the companies have a separate legal personality based on Commercial Law. However, United States case law acknowledges multiple derivative lawsuits for damage recovery incurred to shareholders of a holding company due to unlawful acts of directors of a subsidiary. The expansion of standing of shareholder derivative lawsuits has begun to be discussed along with the introduction of the holding company system in Korea as well. The Commercial Law of Korea regulates that shareholders owning one-hundredths shares of the total number of issued stocks may bring a derivative lawsuit. In relation to such, a point of view emerged opining that ‘shareholders of a holding company’ may be included in the concept of shareholders of the party with right of action. The Supreme Court of Korea did not allow multiple derivative lawsuits without substantive enactments because Korea is a civil law-based country. Based on such holding, legislation of multiple derivative lawsuits has been alleged.
In Japan, the issue of protecting shareholders of a holding company arose in relation to reducing shareholder rights of shareholders of a holding company. As one solution, the introduction of multiple derivative lawsuits is being implemented. Japan has several regulations that save the purpose of the multiple derivative lawsuit system but prevent vexatious actions in the draft proposal for revision of corporate laws. In order to stifle the strong opposition from economic circles regarding the introduction of the multiple derivative lawsuit system, there is a need to refer to the draft proposal for revision of corporate laws and discussions in Japan, which possesses similar economic situations as Korea.
In Korea, the symptoms of business concentration are extremely severe due to large conglomerates. As a result, there is a need to legislate multiple derivative lawsuits to protect the interest of shareholders of a parent company because management failure of subsidiaries may incur significant damage to a parent company and its shareholders. The applicable subjects of multiple derivative lawsuits should be limited to situations in which a parent company owns 100% shares of a subsidiary and in situations where the dominant-subordinate relationship through share possession overlaps, multiple derivative lawsuits should be allowed not only for subsidiaries, but also for sub-subsidiaries and sub-sub-subsidiaries. Additionally, in relation to the requirements for multiple derivative lawsuits, there is a need to make determinations by minority equity to prevent vexatious actions. Just as in standard derivative lawsuits, multiple derivative lawsuits should allow shareholders of a parent company to claim the bringing of actions, to inquire into the responsibilities of directors over a parent company and its subsidiaries, as a procedure before bringing a lawsuit.
The draft proposal for revision of corporate law in Japan strictly regulates the elements necessary to bring multiple derivative lawsuits. Thus, lawsuits are not allowed in cases where the objective is to pursue an unlawful profit by the shareholder who raised the lawsuit or of a third party, or if the objective is to incur damage to a company or an ultimate parent company with complete ownership, and also in cases where damage has not incurred to the ultimate parent company with complete ownership from the cause of liability relating to such lawsuit. Vexatious multiple derivative lawsuits may be prevented by having such restricting regulations upon legislation in Korea as well.
Because the business performance of a subsidiary has a crucial impact on the profits of shareholders of a parent company, understanding the management results of a subsidiary is necessary. To do so, a parent company must be able to access the account books of a subsidiary. However, as parent companies and subsidiaries are separate entities with independent legal personality from a legal perspective, the shareholders of a parent company are not able to exercise their right to access account books. Raising multiple derivative lawsuits would be realistically difficult if shareholders of a parent company are not able to obtain information relating to the accounting details of a subsidiary. In order to procure the effectiveness of multiple derivative lawsuits, access to account books of a subsidiary should be allowed to shareholders of a parent company, just as regulated in the draft proposal for revision of corporate law in Japan.

참고자료

· 없음