황금주(Golden Shares)제도에 대한 입법론적 소고

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Golden Shares sometimes known as 'the special right share', 'the specific share', or 'the master share' give the special shareholder an automatic power either to block the decisions of the company or to force the company to make certain decisions on specified matters, or to control the privatized company's control. It is submitted that the golden share device has its own dangers because it may be used to distort markets for corporate control or to limit the freedom of shareholders to make positive decisions on the future prospect of their company. These Golden Shares are a much debated issue since the European Court of Justice(ECJ) delivered there relevant judgements on June 4, 2002. Since 2002, the ECJ has decided six pivotal cases in which the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment were directly or indirectly restricted through the state holding of Golden Shares. Therefore, as far as EC countries are concerned, the use of Golden Shares to prevent EC foreign companies from investing in the privatized companies may be regarded as a breach of EC competition law which requires non-discrimination of member countries in investing other member countries, except for public interest reasons. As such, Golden Shares long been regarded as a public law issue and the problems have been discussed as such. Nonetheless. the issue is rather one of company law because Golden Share raises the question of equal rights conferred by shares ('one share one vote').
In Korea, the Golden Shares have been actively debated ever since Ministry of Justice proposed the 2006 Revision to Korean Commercial Code which includes introduction of class stock of veto for corporations. It is true that there are many legal problems such as the principle of shareholder equality and the government's economic intervention associated in introducing Golden Shares into Korea. Nonetheless, it will be effective for the government to retain these Golden Shares in the privatized enterprises which are still very important in the national security and economy. However. these classic Golden Shares should be permitted only if they can be justified on specified grounds or by overriding requirements of the general interests which are (a) non-discriminatory. (b) non-discretionary and (c) satisfy the principle of proportionality and (d) the principle of legal certainty. Also. regardless of listed company or not. it is deserved to adopt class stock of veto for corporations. However. it is desirable to introduce Golden Shares under the very limited conditions. based on original memorandum of association or agreement of entire shareholders.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. 황금주제도 일반론
• Ⅲ. 황금주제도의 도입방식 및 유형
• Ⅳ. 황금주에 대한 EU법원의 판결 내용 및 기준
• Ⅴ. 황금주제도의 도입여부 및 입법과제
• Ⅵ. 맺음말
• 參考文獻
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 나동민, "출자금융기관의 민영화 전략" 한국개발연구원 2002
• 2 김태진, "주주평등원칙에 관한 소고" 한국기업법학회 22 (22): 9-52, 2008
• 3 박철영, "종류주식의 다양화를 위한 법적 연구" 성균관대학교 2004
• 4 권종호, "적대적 M&A 에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 95-122, 2006
• 5 경제개혁연대, "유승민 의원의 상법개정안에 대해 국회 법제사법위원회에 반대의견제출"
• 6 이형규, "상법개정안상 거부권부주식의 도입에 관한 검토" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 121-138, 2007
• 7 전국경제인연합회, "상법개정 입법예고(안)에 대한 의견"
• 8 한국은행 금융정보팀, "금융기관민영화와 황금주" 한국은행 (20) : 2004
• 9 時事通信士, "黃金株,禁止に反對=東證方針は過剩規制-經團連"
• 10 김순석, "黃金株(Golden Shares) 制度에 관한 硏究" 한국비교사법학회 16 (16): 267-320, 2009
• 11 時事通信士, "黃金株 禁止, 認められない=東證の方針に異論-与謝野金融相"
• 12 時事通信士, "買收防衛の毒藥導入, 相談制に= 黃金株は條件付き容認 -東證"
• 13 森本 滋, "株主平等原則と株式社員權者" (1401) : 1995
• 14 森本 滋, "會社法の下における株主平等原則" (1825) : 2008
• 15 Audax Peter Rutabanzibwa, "What is Golden in the Golden Share? : Company Law Implications of Privatisation" 1996
• 16 Gert-Jan Vossestein, "Volswagen : the State of Affairs of Golden Shares"
• 17 Julian Cooper, "Transformation of the Russian Defense Industry" 1994
• 18 Barnard C, "The Substantive Law of the EU : The Four Freedoms(1 Ed)" Oxford University Press 2004
• 19 Ivan Kuznetsov, "The Legality of Golden Shares under EC Law" 1 (1): 2005
• 20 Alice Pezard, "The Golden Share of Privatized Companies" 21 (21): 1995
• 21 Peer Zumbansen, "The ECJ, Volkswagen and European Corporate Law : Reshaping the European Varieties of Capitalism" 8 (8): 2007
• 22 Charles Vuylsteke, "Techniques of Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises xi-xii" World Bank 1988
• 23 ISS Europe, "Report on the Proportionality Principle in the European Union" ISS Europe/S&S/ECGI 2007
• 24 Daniel Saam, "Protection for Domestic Core Enterprises against Direct Investments by Foreign State-owned Investment Funds" 1 (1): 2007
• 25 Leonard Hyman, "Privatization:The Hows and Whys" 131 (131): 1993
• 26 Phillippe Sarrailhe, "Privatization in 1993" 7 (7): 1994
• 27 Kartini Abd. Kadir, "Malaysia : Independent Party to Decide Naval Dockyard's Price" 1994
• 28 Schuitt, "M&A in the Netherlands"
• 29 David Gow, "Loss of Germany's VW law spells end of the road for golden shares"
• 30 Christine O'Grady Putek, "Limited but Not Lost : A Comment on the ECJ's Golden Share Decisions" 72 (72): 2004
• 31 de Beaufort, "Les OPA en Europe"
• 32 Andrei A. Baev, "Is There a Niche for the State in Corporate Governance? Securitization of State-Owned Enterprises and New Forms of State Ownership" 18 (18): 1995
• 33 Erika Szyszczak, "Golden Shares and Market Governance"
• 34 Stefan Grundmann, "Golden Shares : State Control in Privatized Companies : Comparative Law, European Law and Policy Aspects" Social Sciences Research Network 2004
• 35 Cosmo Graham, "Golden Shares : Industrial Policy by Stealth?" 413 : 1988
• 36 "ECJ 4. 6. 2002-Case C-503/99 Commission v Belgium, ECR 2002, I-4809"
• 37 "ECJ 4. 6. 2002-Case C-483/99 Commission v France, ECR 2002, I-4781"
• 38 "ECJ 4. 6. 2002-Case C-367/98 Commission v Portugal, ECR 2002, I-4731"
• 39 De Savornin Lohmann, "Duties and Liabilities of Directors and Shareholders under Netherlands Law"
• 40 "Case-54/99 Association de Scientologie de Paris, 2000, E.C.R I-1335, para. 18"
• 41 "Case-163/94, C-165/94, C-250/94 Sanz de Lera [1995] ECR I-4821, para. 21"
• 42 "Case C-98/01, Commission v. United Kingdom, 2003 E.C.R. I-4641. para. 11"
• 43 "Case C-503/99, Commission v. Belgium, 2002 E.C.R. I-4809. para. 28 et seq., 49 and 51."
• 44 "Case C-503/99, Commission v. Belgium, 2002 E.C.R. I-4809"
• 45 "Case C-483/99, Commission v. France, 2002 E.C.R. I-4781. para. 51"
• 46 "Case C-483/99, Commission v. France, 2002 E.C.R. I-4781"
• 47 "Case C-367/98, Portugal, 2002 E.C.R. I-4731, para. 52"
• 48 "Case C-367/98, Commission v. Portugal, 2002 E.C.R. I-4731, para. 22"
• 49 "Case C-112/2005, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, para. 70"
• 50 "Case C-112/2005, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, para. 56"
• 51 "Case C-112/2005, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany"
• 52 "Case 72/83, Campus Oil, ECR 1984. 2727, para. 7"
• 53 William A. Klein, "Business organization and Finance : Legal and Economic Principles(9th ed)" Foudation Press 2004