역내⋅외 모자회사에 대한 미국법원의 재판관할권의 제한적 행사 경향과 그 한계 (Jurisdiction of American Courts over a Parent Corporation based on its ownership of a Subsidiary)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비교사법 / 21권 / 3호 / 1323 ~ 1346페이지
· 저자명 : 김용진

초록

미국 각 주의 관할확대법규와 판례의 유통이론, 대리이론, 분신이론 등으로 무장한 미국법원의 재판관할권 주장은, 오늘날 미국시장과 연계하지 않고서는 원활한 사업활동을 하기 어려운 외국의 기업들로서는 커다란 위협이 아닐 수 없다. 다국적 기업도 이와 같은 위험을 비껴갈 수 없다. 자회사가 미국에 있다는 사실만으로 외국의 모회사에 대한 재판권 행사는 법인격독립의 원칙을 무색케 한다. 미국 판례는 법정지에 모회사가 있는 경우 외국의 자회사 대하여 통할관할을 인정할 뿐 아니라 자회사가 법정지에 있는 경우에도 외국의 모회사에 대하여 분신관할을 인정하는 법리를 발전시켜온 것이다. 아래 글은 미국의 인적 재판관할권 행사의 대상인 외국기업의 입장에서 미국법원의 관할 노출 위험에 대한 대응방안을 제시한다. 이를 위하여 모자회사에 관련된 미국법원의 판례의 발전을 소개하고, 특히 금년 초 연방대법원의 다임러 판결을 분석하였다.

영어초록

For many decades, courts has assumed general jurisdiction over corporation on the basis that they were doing business in the forum, as evidenced by the corporation's commercial presence in the state. Today a plaintiff may sue a corporation not only in its "home" state -that is, where the business is incorporated or has its principal place of business- but also in a state where it directly conducts business and that business gave rise to the breach of contract, tort, or public law violation at issue in the case.
This basis of jurisdiction was evaluated in respect of principal-subsidiary relationship. Though many has had a propound doubt about a very important question: when, for jurisdictional purposes, can the contacts of a subsidiary be imputed to its parent?, some states has expanded their jurisdiction over the foreign principal company relying on the agency theory and alter-ego theory. Especially the jurisdictional expansion of the state of New York was perceived as exorbitant by foreign companies and often condemned as promoting forum shopping.
In the very recent case, the Daimler AG, the Supreme Court has severely limited such a long-arm jurisdiction. The decision makes it more challenging to sue a foreign corporation in a jurisdiction where specific jurisdiction does not exist. After Bauman general jurisdiction now requires not only that a foreign company's forum state contacts be "continuously and systematic", but also that the company must be "essentially at home" in the jurisdiction. This case is broadly estimated to have solved the problem, if an alleged agent's contacts could be imputed to a parent corporation. This is true in the extent, that the focus of the general jurisdiction analysis is moved from on the alleged agent's contacts with the forum state, to on that of the defendant.
In this Article, I carefully examine the jurisdictional expansion of the court S.D.N.Y. and the real-world consequences for litigants. I also look at the critical questions that Daimler left unanswered - in particular, the standard for imputation of jurisdictional contacts from a subsidiary to a parent.

참고자료

· 없음