경영판단행위에 대한 배임죄의 적용 - 중소기업사례를 중심으로 - (Applying breach of trust against directors' acts in business - Focused on Supreme Court decisions in the area of small businesses -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국법정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법과정책연구 / 13권 / 3호 / 871 ~ 905페이지
· 저자명 : 장성원

초록

경영판단행위에서 파생되는 법적 문제 가운데 배임죄의 성립과 관련하여서 특히 경영판단원칙의 적용여부가 논의되고 있다. 본고에서는 경영판단행위에 대해 배임죄를 검토한 판례를 염두에 두고 경영판단원칙의 배임죄에서 체계상 지위문제를 따져보면서, 배임죄에서 경영판단원칙이 갖는 실질적인 의미가 무엇인지, 배임죄의 성립요건으로 이를 해소하는 방식은 어떠해야 하는지에 대해 해명하고자 한다. 민사책임의 제한근거이자 과실책임의 판단기준인 경영판단원칙이 배임죄와 같은 고의의 형사책임에서도 작동할 수 있는지, 경영판단원칙이 배임죄의 체계상 요건 가운데 객관적 구성요건표지인 임무위배행위에 대한 판단자료인지, 주관적 구성요건의 단계에서 판단되어야 하는지를 검토한다.
경영판단행위에 대해 배임죄를 적용하기 위한 구체적인 문제로서는 배임죄의 구성요건 가운데 특히 임무위배행위를 중심으로 손해 및 고의와의 관련성 아래 경영판단원칙의 내용을 수용할 수 있는 방안을 모색한다. 판례에 나타난 경영판단행위에 대한 배임죄 적용의 문제들을 세부적인 내용 분석에 따라 함께 논의하고, 그 가운데 특히 대법원에서 중소기업을 대상으로 한 판례사건을 소재로 하여 배임죄 성립요건의 적용문제를 비판적으로 검토하였다. 경영판단행위에 대해 배임죄를 검토한 판례를 대상으로 하여 판단기준으로 삼은 경영판단원칙의 내용은 무엇인지, 이를 배임죄의 체계상 어디에서 다루는지, 그리고 배임죄 성부에 어떤 영향을 인정하고 있는지, 아울러 중소기업과 대기업 사안에서 특이점은 있는지 등에 대하여 개관하고자 하였다. 이를 통해 경영판단원칙은 형법에서 적어도 배임죄를 제한하는 원리로는 기능한다고 보지만, 경영판단원칙이라는 별도의 장치 없이 배임죄 구성요건의 해석을 통해 그 취지와 내용이 수용가능하다는 점을 논증하고자 하였다.

영어초록

Directors of corporations face liability risks from the inappropriate investment. Directors who breach their duties to the corporation may be liable if the corporation suffers a loss that can be directly attributed to their commissions or omissions. Liability of directors in this regard may arise as a result of their failure. The business judgment rule is an assumption that in making a business decision, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company. The business judgment rule is a U.S. case law, derived concept in corporations’ law.
Given that the directors cannot ensure corporate success, the business judgment rule specifies that the court will not review the business decisions of directors who performed their duties in good faith, with the care and in the reasonable belief that their actions are in the corporation's best interest. The business judgment rule performs a function favor of the directors, freeing from possible liability for decisions that result in harm to the corporation.
Although several decisions have held that the rule is available to directors, commentators are divided as to whether the business judgment rule is available to director. The Korean Supreme Court accepted partially the business judgment rule in Breach of Trust cases. Some commentators have stated the opposite. As the Supreme Court has said, in the inherently risky environment of business, the directors need to be free to take legal liability affecting their judgment if the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.
As part of directors’ duties, which includes both a fiduciary duty, and a duty of reasonable care, directors have a duty not to waste corporate assets. The court held that directors of a corporation have an obligation to apply property towards the rational objects of the corporation. This duty includes not undertaking an unauthorized business purpose. The consequence of a breach of such a duty is that the transaction is voidable by the company. The duties and liabilities of directors are governed by statute.
Failure to properly perform these duties may render a director criminally liable to pay damages. Also the consistent decision in the area of small businesses emphasizes the fiduciary responsibility of directors of corporations. Any loss of assets due to the malfeasance or failure to act of the directors could make the directors liable for possibly breach of trust. The case also includes the business judgment rule which states that if a director has applied reasonable care, has a basis for believing that the decision made was in the best interest of the company, the director will not be held liable for a breach of duty. This is only if a director did not act in bad faith or for improper purpose.
Under the Criminal Law, the business judgment rule is not yet the offspring of the fundamental principle, that the business and affairs of a corporation are managed by directors. In addition, its notable facet is that some directors’ decisions lie outside the business judgment rule. Furthermore, courts may apply the more stringent test, requiring a director when acting as a director in good faith and for a proper purpose, in the best interests of the company, with the degree of care.
Consequently, one of the points of review that has entered the business judgment rule was the prohibition against duty of loyalty violation. The law imposes fiduciary culpabilities to ensure that authority is exercised responsibly. Directors in a business should act in good faith, in the best interests of the corporation. By implementing reasonable and rational decision, directors reduce the risk of liabilities for breach of trust.

참고자료

· 없음