은행의 지배구조와 은행 이사의 법률적 책임 - 상법 제401조의 해석을 중심으로 - (Corporate Governance of Banks and Bank Director Liability)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 서울대학교 법학 / 51권 / 4호 / 151 ~ 184페이지
· 저자명 : 김화진

초록

주식회사의 이사가 회사에 대해 부담하는 주의의무는 회사의 업종이나 규모에 따라 차별적이어야 한다는 상법의 해석은 은행 이사의 법률적 책임을 상정하면 가장 잘 이해된다. 은행은 공공적 기능을 수행하고 리스크의 인수를 사업의 핵심으로 하므로 은행 이사는 일반 회사의 이사에 비해 높은 주의의무를 부담한다. 여기서 은행 이사의 리스크관리의무를 해석으로 인정할 수 있다. 상법 제401조에 의해 이사가 제3자에게 부담하는 책임의 발생은 그 기준의 모호성 때문에 상법의 해석에서 가장 어려운 문제들 중 하나로 남아있다. 상법 제401조의 해석에 은행 이사가 리스크관리의무를 부담한다는 점을 대입해 보면 은행 이사가 제3자에게 법률적 책임을 지게 되는 기준이 명확히 설정될 수 있다. 은행 이사가 은행으로 하여금 제3자와 위험성이 높은 계약을 체결하게 하거나 제3자와의 계약을 위반하게 하는 방식으로 업무를 집행함으로써 은행에 리스크가 발생하였다면 그 이사의 행위는 은행에 단기적인 이익을 발생시켰다 해도 이사의 임무해태에 해당한다.

영어초록

The level of director’s fiduciary duty owed to the corporation very much depends upon the size and business area of the corporation. The rule can be best understood in terms of the bank director liability. Banks are required to contribute to the stability of the financial markets and to the development of the national economy. This is the reason that the Korean Supreme Court once ruled that bank directors must fulfill their fiduciary duties with utmost (enhanced) care. This Article argues that such fiduciary duties include the duty to properly manage risks. This Article suggests that violating the duty to manage risks bank director can be held liable also to third parties, partners to a joint venture project included, under Article 401 of the Korean Commercial Code. The bank director may breach the fiduciary duty to the bank even when the director acted in the short-term interest of the bank if the act exposed the bank to higher enterprise risk and caused the bank being responsible for the increase of the systemic risk.
This Article argues that Article 401 of the Korean Commercial Code shall be interpreted by the following theory: It is possible that a director has intentionally breached a corporation’s contract with a third party rather by considering the interest of the firm. In such a case, whether it should be deemed as the director’s neglect of duty towards the corporationis not easy to answer at a glance. That is because it may be viewed as a breach of neither laws and regulations nor the articles of incorporation. Nevertheless, articles of incorporation of any company contain business objectives. A breach of external obligations in bad faith may undermine the company’s reputation and credit so as to deal a blow in achieving the company’s business objectives while affecting the reliance on the company placed by its interested parties such as its shareholders, officers and employees. From the perspective that a company does not exist solely for the purpose of seeking financial interests of its shareholders, but is a social being that should be sustainable, such an act of a director may cause harm to the company as well as to all of its interested parties even though it is in the interest of shareholders. Moreover, if a director arbitrarily breaches a contract, that can influence the corporate governance of the company, such as issuance of stocks or debentures, and not a general transaction of goods, such breach will ruin the company’s credit in the capital market and work unfavorably to the efforts of securing additional funding. Furthermore, it will remain as a bad record in case it is necessary to save the company in emergency situations.

참고자료

· 없음