종류주식 다양화의 법적문제 = A Legal Study on Diversification of Class Shares

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As it has been suggested that Korean Commercial Code, as it stands, is not sufficient to efficiently raise funds, many discussions on diversification of class shares have been developed. Diversification of class shares has not only a function to raise capital but practical usages so as to defend management control. They could make a contribution to revitalize capital markets through diversifying investment vehicles and raise corporate competitiveness as well as make it maneuverable to employ funds.
However, as it is not easy to introduce new types of shares to Korean Commercial Code which are to be used as a way to defend a possible hostile takeover attempt, discussions on diversification of class shares are now under way. It is because the diversifications could be so misused as tools to perpetuate corporate control or abuse the right of management that they would damage business management, transparency of corporate governance, or stimulation of corporate restructuring.
Though Poison Pill has been recently discussed in Ministry of Justice except Multiple Voting Shares, the former is not tied up with raising capital but related to corporate governance because of the limited capacity protecting established executives and shareholders' benefits. In that the purpose of diversification of class shares is to effectively raise funds, it is more efficient to introduce Multiple Voting Shares than Poison Pill.
The difficulties about Multiple Voting Shares would be solved by the following reasons. First, supposing corporate governance and cash flow rights are separated, Multiple Voting Shares could enable corporate control to be assigned to the persons concerned. Second, on the assumption of sufficient disclosure, investors have the options of Multiple Voting Shares. In particular, it would attract long-term investment which is to secure stable financing that Multiple Voting Shares are allocated by how long they have been owned. Needless to say, we should set up a legal system that differentiates the voting rights by holding periods, prepare the mechanism that regulates the proportion of their issues, and arrange supplementary measures such as methods to adjust conflicting interests between share holders, consolidate the outside-director system, and intensify the duty of loyalty.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이철송, "회사법" 박영사 2009
• 2 유영일, "차등의결권주에 관한 연구 - 도입필요성을 중심으로 -" 한국상사판례학회 21 (21): 93-135, 2008
• 3 상장자료실, "차등의결권제도의 각국 사례와 검토과제" 2008
• 4 박양균, "차등의결권 제도의 경제학적 분석" 한국규제학회 18 (18): 143-172, 2009
• 5 신석훈, "주주자본주의에 대한 법경제학적 접근 - 우리나라 회사 소유지배구조 정책에 주는 시사점 -" 한국경제연구원 2009
• 6 권종호, "종류주식제도의 개선방안" 2008
• 7 박철영, "종류주식의 확대와 주주간 이해조정" 24 (24): 2005
• 8 최한수, "재계의 경영권 방어수단 도입 주장에 대한 비판적 검토 -차등의결권과 포이즌필의 도입 논의를 중심으로-" 2008
• 9 송 종 준, "방어적 주식제도의 국제적 입법동향과 도입 과제 - 2006년 회사법 개정안을 중심으로 -" 한국경영법률학회 17 (17): 91-128, 2007
• 10 권종호, "방어수단으로서 종류주식 ― 2006년 개정안과 2008년 개정안을 중심으로 ―" 한국상사법학회 27 (27): 51-77, 2008
• 11 김우찬, "독약증권(poison pill) 우리나라에선 진짜 독"
• 12 김화진, "기업인수합병" 박영사 2007
• 13 김화진, "글로벌M&A시장 동향과 경영권 방어" (53) : 2006
• 14 "경제개혁리포트, “EU의 경영권 방어수단 현황 및 그 함의 : 과연 EU는 경영권 방어의 천국인가?”" 경제개혁연대
• 15 "議決權種類株式の上場制度に関する報告書" 東京證券去來所
• 16 Ben McClure, "The Two Sides of Dual-Class Shares" 2004
• 17 Bennedsen, M, "The Principle of Portional Owership, Investor Protection and Firm Value in Western Europe, ECGI Working Paper" 2008
• 18 Jeffrey N. Gordon, "TIES THAT BOND: DUAL CLASS COMMON STOCK AND THE PROBLEM OF SHAREHOLDER CHOICE" 1988
• 19 External Study Commissioned by the European Commission, "Report on the Proportionality principle in the European Union"
• 20 S. Grossman, "One-Share - One Vote and the Market for Corporate Control" 20 : 1988
• 21 "NYSE Listed Company Manual"
• 22 "NASDAQ Manual"
• 23 OECD, "Lack of Proportionality between Ownership and Control; Overview and Issues for Discussion" 2007
• 24 Commission of the European Communities, "Impact Assessment on the Proportionality between Capital and Control in Listed Companies" 2007
• 25 김건식, "21세기 회사법 개정의 논리" 도서출판 소화 2006
• 26 윤영신, "1주1의결권원칙과 차등의결권원칙에 대한 검토" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 203-241, 2009