집행임원에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용 가능성

• 영문명: The Application of the Business Judgment Rule to Executive Officers: The Theory and Practice in the U.S.
• 발행기관: 원광대학교 법학연구소
• 저자명: 문정해(Moon Jung Hai)
• 간행물 정보: 『원광법학』제29권 제2호, 93~117쪽, 전체 24쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2013.06.30

영문 초록

The executive officers mean, in the case of a corporation, the top of officers of a corporation. In 2011, the Korean Commercial Code adopted the new regime for the executive officers, and, as the duty currently stands, they owe some duties(including fiduciary duties) analogous to those owed by directors, to the company they are employed by and the shareholders they serve. In the U.S., the Delaware Supreme Court, renowned for its corporate governance decisions, recently decided Gantler v. Stephens and held that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors. Before Gantler, two competing views emerged with respect to the protections courts should extend to executive officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. One argued that executive officers and directors were equal fiduciaries and, therefore, courts should afford them the same business judgment presumption. Another contended that executive officers had greater responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the companies and, thus, should not be given the deferential treatment of the business judgment presumption. Gantler is important because it expressly held that executive officers are fiduciaries, however, the opinion left some very important questions undecided. One of those questions is whether the business judgment rule applies to executive officers. This article studies on the theory and practice of the business judgment rule under Delaware law in order to have a clearer understanding of whether Korea needs the rule to protect executive officers under the Korean Commercial Code.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 집행임원에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용 가능성 관련 미국학계의 이론

Ⅲ. 집행임원에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용 가능성 관련 미국의 사례

Ⅳ. 결론

참고문헌

ABSTRACT

키워드

이사 집행임원 경영판단원칙 신인의무 주의의무 director executive officer business judgment rule fiduciary duty duty of care