電子商業廣告物인 스팸메일의 法的 問題點과 그 解決方案

정준우 한국상사법학회 2000 商事法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

Dysphagia with Unilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis in Herpes Zoster: A Case Report

정준우,장예지,홍은혜,김광호,김광중,박은주 대한피부과학회 2022 Annals of Dermatology Vol.34 No.6

Herpes zoster is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, which becomes latent in ganglia afterprimary infection. When the varicella-zoster virus reactivates on the cranial nerve, the pa-tient can suffer from cranial nerve palsy, pain, and skin lesions on the head and neck area. A57-year-old immunocompetent male presented with dysphagia lasting 10 days. Computedtomography and other neurological findings were normal. However, laryngoscopy showedright vocal cord paralysis, which might be the reason for dysphagia in this patient. Therewas a grouped crusted lesion on the right posterior auricular area that appeared 5 days afterthe dysphagia. After famciclovir and prednisolone combination therapy, the patient wascured with no sequelae. This is a rare case of herpes zoster in an immunocompetent patientwho presented with dysphagia. In addition, it was difficult to make an accurate diagnosisbecause his skin lesion appeared several days after dysphagia.

주주제안권의 실효성 제고를 위한 개선방안 검토

정준우 한국경제법학회 2020 경제법연구 Vol.19 No.1

In the course of overcoming the IMF foreign exchange crisis, the Commercial Act, revised in 1998, introduced shareholders’ rights to make proposals to improve corporate governance and enhance management transparency. Contrary to expectations, however, the use of shareholders’ rights to make proposals was poor, due to the imperfections contained in the relevant regulations. Thus, in this paper, I identified the problems contained in the regulations on the requirements and the effect of the shareholders' proposal rights, and based on them, sought a reasonable improvement plan to improve the effectiveness of the shareholders’ proposal right. First, the measures to improve the effectiveness related to the requirements of shareholders’ proposal rights are as follows. 1) The current equity requirements should be relaxed, and the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies should be defined in the same way as the Commercial Act, and the retention period of the equity requirements should be clarified. 2) The criteria for judging equity requirements should be revised to the total number of voting-issued stocks, and shareholders should grasp it as a concept of ownership, and accept another standards based on the amount of money or the number of shares. 3) Whether or not the stock holding period (continued from 6 months ago) must be verified, the proposed shareholder must prove it, and even in the case of unlisted companies, the stock holding period should be limited. 4) Shareholders should be allowed to freely choose between the general and special provisions for listed companies regarding shareholders’ proposals. 5) In Article 363-2 of the Commercial Act, the phrase “six weeks before the date of the general meeting of shareholders” shall be deleted, and the leaflet of paragraph (3) shall also be amended. Second, the measures to improve the effectiveness related to the effect of shareholders’ proposal rights are as follows. 1) The director’s reporting obligation to the board of directors regarding the exercise of the subject matter should be clarified, and the proposed shareholder should be notified of whether or not the board of directors proposes an agenda item at the general shareholders’ meeting within a certain period after the shareholders’ proposal is exercised. 2) Article 635 (1)-21 of the Commercial Act on the disposal of fines shall be amended. 3) The chairman of the general shareholders’ meeting should be informed of the shareholders' proposals at the general shareholders' meeting and give the shareholders who exercised the right to propose shareholders an opportunity to explain the bills. 4) The reasons for the board’s rejection of shareholder proposals should be deleted as there is no validity except for some. 5) There should be legislative supplementary measures to prevent the board's unreasonable rejection of the shareholder’s proposal or the modification of the proposal. 6) It is necessary to clarify the relationship between the shareholders’ proposal right and the stock ownership reporting system. 7) In the case of shareholder proposals regarding the appointment of directors, the type of director should be clearly stated. IMF 외환위기를 극복하는 과정에서 1998년 개정상법은 일반주주들에게 경영참여기회를 부여하여 기업지배구조를 개선하고 경영의 투명성을 제고하기 위해 주주제안권을 도입하였고, 2009년 개정상법은 증권거래법상 상장회사 특례규정을 수용하였다. 그렇지만 규정의 미비점으로 인해 실무에서는 주주제안권의 활용도가 여전히 저조하다. 이에 본고에서는 주주제안권의 행사요건과 행사효과를 중심으로 관련 규정에 내포된 문제점을 규명하고, 이를 바탕으로 주주제안권의 실효성을 제고할 수 있는 개선방안을 모색하였다. 먼저 행사요건에 있어서는 ① 지분요건을 완화하고, 금융회사지배구조법의 지분요건도 상법과 동일하게 규정해야 하며, 지분요건의 유지기간을 명확히 해야 한다. ② 지분요건의 판단기준을 의결권 있는 발행주식총수로 개정하고, 주주는 소유의 개념으로 파악해야 하며, 금액기준이나 주식수기준 등도 수용해야 한다. ③ 주식보유기간(6개월 전부터 계속하여)의 충족 여부는 제안주주가 입증해야 하고, 비상장회사의 경우에도 주식보유기간에 관한 제한을 두어야 한다. ④ 제안주주들이 일반규정과 특례규정 중 자신이 충족할 수 있는 것을 자유롭게 선택할 수 있도록 허용해야 한다. ⑤ 제363조의2에서 “주주총회일의 6주 전에”라는 문구는 삭제하고, 제3항 전단을 개정해야 한다. 다음으로 행사효과에 있어서는 ① 주주제안에 관한 이사의 보고의무를 명확히 하고, 제안 후 일정한 기간 내에 이사회가 주주총회에의 상정 여부를 제안주주에게 통지하도록 해야 한다. ② 과태료 처분에 관한 제635조 제1항 제21호를 개정해야 한다. ③ 의장이 주주총회에서 제안내용을 공지하고 제안주주에게 설명기회를 부여하도록 해야 한다. ④ 이사회의 거부사유는 일부를 제외하고는 타당성이 없으므로 삭제해야 한다. ⑤ 주주제안에 대한 이사회의 부당한 거부나 변형상정을 방지할 수 있는 입법적 보완조치가 있어야 한다. ⑥ 주주제안권과 주식대량보유상황보고제도의 관계를 명확히 해야 한다. ⑦ 이사 선임에 관한 주주제안에서는 그 유형을 적시하도록 해야 한다.

준법경영의 확립을 위한 준법지원인제도의 문제점 및 개선방안 - 준법지원인의 법적지위를 중심으로 -

정준우 한국상사법학회 2015 商事法硏究 Vol.34 No.2

The Commercial Act amended 2011 has adapted the compliance officer system for the compliance management. A listed company, therefore, determined by Presidential Decree in light of the scale of assets, etc. shall establish guidelines and procedures that their employees and directors must observe in order to abide by Acts and subordinate statutes and make their management appropriate when the employees and directors perform their duties(§542-13(1)). A listed company shall have one or more persons responsible for the work on abiding by the compliance guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “compliance officer")(§542-13(2)), in order to appoint and remove a compliance officer, a listed company shall obtain a resolution of the board of directors(§542-13(4)). And a compliance officer shall check whether the compliance guidelines are complied with and shall report the outcomes thereof to the board of directors(§542-13(3)). The term of a compliance officer shall be three years, and he/she shall work full time(§542-13(6)). The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to a compliance officer, as long as no specific provisions to the contrary exist in other Acts: Provided, That the provisions of paragraph (6) shall preferentially apply in cases where the term of a compliance officer under other Act is shorter than the term set forth in paragraph (6)(§542-13(11)). And no listed company shall unfairly disadvantage a person who was a compliance officer in personnel matters for reasons related to his/her performance of duties(§542-13(10)). There, however, are many legal problems in the provisions relating to the legal status of compliance officer under the Commercial Act. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the problems implicated these provisions relating to the legal status of compliance officer, and I have proposed the improving methods for settlement of such legal problems. The top priority for improving the compliance management culture is firming up the legal status of compliance officer. The second, that should be reviewed prospectively for the adjunct of compliance officer, if it can help with compliance management without compromising the independence of compliance officer. The third, the provisions relating to dismissal of compliance officer should be placed in the Commercial Act. The forth, it is necessary to be included the result of election and dismissal and job evaluation results of compliance officer in the public announcement, should strengthen the dismissal requirements of compliance officer. The fifth, to perform the supporting task of compliance management, the compliance officer must build institutions and other organic business cooperation. Finally, when the compliance officer report the result of their task for compliance management to the board of directors, that must be submitted to auditors at the same time, and the auditor must also notify the compliance officer when reporting audit results to the board of directors or the shareholders' meeting.

주주총회의 실효적 운영을 위한 개선방안 검토 -주주총회의 소집절차에 관련된 쟁점을 중심으로-

정준우 한국기업법학회 2019 企業法硏究 Vol.33 No.3

The general meeting of shareholders is a necessary permanent organ of the corporation and the highest decision-making body that resolves matters prescribed by law or articles of incorporation. Therefore, the authority of the general meeting of shareholders cannot be delegated to other institutions, and it cannot be agenda or replaced by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders with the decisions of another organizations or individuals. However, as mass capital flows into stock companies, shareholders who are interested only in profits and dividends rather than participation in management are increasing, the sentence of the general meeting of shareholders was deepened. In addition, listed companies that have relied on the shadow voting system have many problems of failing to secure the number of legislators. In this paper, I have reviewed the current issues related to the decision and the notice of convocation of the general meeting of shareholders under the Commercial Act. In the case of the former, the subcommittee on the total number of shares issued should be clarified, the adequacy and uniformity of the equity requirements should be secured, the period of retention must be established, and the right to call for the summons required by the general regulations of the shareholders of listed companies must be provided. And follow-up measures related to the purpose or the reason for convocation and measures for blocking the various side effects related to them should be taken. In the latter case, the effectiveness of the electronic shareholder list should be improved, the setting period of the reference date should be shortened more, the period for convening notices should be extended to three weeks or more, and the unclear part related to the convocation notice method should be improved and new notifications be made. Prospective introduction of methods should be considered, and e-announcements of listed companies should be replaced by constitution only by the articles of incorporation. In addition, the general shareholders' meeting held at a specific date should be distributed to enhance the convenience of institutional investors and general shareholders who have invested in diversification and exercise voting rights. 주주총회는 법률 또는 정관에서 정한 사항을 결의하는 주식회사의 필요적 상설기관이고 최고의 의사결정기구이다. 따라서 주주총회의 권한사항은 다른 기관에 위임할 수 없고, 다른 기관이나 개인의 의사결정을 가지고 주주총회의 결의로 의제하거나 그에 갈음할 수도 없다. 그런데 대중자본이 주식회사에 유입되면서 경영참여 보다는 시세차익이나 이익배당에만 관심 있는 주주들이 증가하고, 그동안 자신들의 의사결정에 대한 사실상의 추인기구로 주주총회를 생각해 왔던 대주주나 경영진의 소극적인 태도로 인해 주주총회의 형해화가 심화되었다. 더욱이 그림자투표제도에 의존해 왔던 상장회사의 경우에는 동 제도가 폐지되면서 의결정족수를 확보하지 못하는 문제가 발생하고 있어 주주총회의 소집절차를 보다 합리화해야 한다. 이에 본고에서는 주주총회의 소집결정과 소집통지에 관련된 쟁점들을 검토하며 문제점을 규명하고 개선방안을 모색하였다. 즉 전자의 경우에는 발행주식총수의 포섭법위를 명확히 해야 하고, 지분요건의 적정성과 통일성을 확보하고 그 유지기간을 정해야 하며, 상장회사 주주의 일반규정에 의한 소집청구권을 허용해야 하고, 목적사항․소집이유 등에 관련된 후속조치와 부작용의 차단방안을 강구해야 한다. 다음으로 후자의 경우에는 전자주주명부의 효용성을 제고해야 하고, 기준일의 설정기간을 좀 더 줄여야 하며, 소집통지기간을 3주 이상으로 늘려야 하고, 소집통지방법에 관련된 불명확한 부분을 개선하고 새로운 통지방법의 도입을 전향적으로 고려해야 하며, 상장회사에서의 전자공고는 정관에 의해서만 소집통지에 갈음할 수 있도록 해야 하고, 목적사항에 관련된 정보를 전자공시 등 다양한 방법으로 충분히 제공하여 주주들이 합리적인 의사결정을 할 수 있도록 지원해야 하며, 특정 주간에 집중된 정기주주총회를 분산시켜 기관투자자나 일반주주들의 의안분석과 의결권 행사의 편의성을 제고해야 한다.

이사에 대한 책임추궁의 효율성 제고방안에 관한 상법개정안의 비판적 검토

정준우 한국기업법학회 2018 企業法硏究 Vol.32 No.2

Since the representative suits by shareholders are filed for the benefit of the company, the effect of the judgment is directly attributed to the company. However, in business practice, the representative lawsuits are not actively used as expected, and the moral hazard of the directors is occurring. This is because not only the problems and deficiencies are contained in the related regulations but also the public shareholders who are indifferent to the management of the company and who are interested only in dividend profit or profit distribution have increased. Thus, members of the Congress such as Kim Jong In etc. have initiated the Amendments of the Commercial Act to improve the efficiency in pursuing the responsibilities of directors. The main content of the Amendments is to rationally improve the representative litigation system and introduce multiple representative litigation. However, in the case of Amendments on the improvement of the representative litigation system, the union is entitled to file a complaint with the union or the representative of the employee without any clear grounds, and even if the company sues the director, in the case of the right to claim books, which is introduced in order to systematically guarantee the right of information acquisition of the complainant's shareholders, there is a lack of equity with other shareholders, and in the case of a representative lawyer who does not have a direct legal relationship with the company, and the direct claim to the company in relation to the remuneration can be granted. In sum, much of the amendment on the improvement of the representative litigation system requires a full review. In the case of Amendments for the introduction of a multi-representative suits by shareholders, the unfair problem between the parent company's shareholders and the subsidiary's shareholders must be resolved by first limiting the scope of the multi-representative suits to 100% fully parent company, there is a need for measures to be taken when disposing of stocks. Measures should be taken to prevent abuse by alleviation of litigation, and it should be abolished because it is too restrictive to regulate to obtain prior permission from the court. In this case, therefore, a full-scale review is necessary. And it should be noted that nobody is responsible for the economic damage caused by the wrong revision, so a more detailed study is needed. 주주의 대표소송은 회사재산의 건전성을 확보하고 이사의 임무해태를 예방하는 기능을 수행한다. 그런데 기업실무에서는 법이 기대한 만큼 주주대표소송이 활발히 이용되지 못하고 있고, 그로 인해 이사들의 도덕적 해이까지 발생하고 있다. 이는 회사경영에 무관심하며 전매차익이나 이익배당에만 관심 있는 대중주주가 크게 늘어났으며, 관련 규정에 문제점과 미비점이 내포되어 있기 때문이다. 그리하여 김종인․노회찬․오신환․윤상직․이종걸․이훈․채이배 의원이 이사에 대한 책임추궁제도의 효율성을 제고하기 위한 상법개정안을 대표발의하였는데, 그 주된 내용은 대표소송제도를 합리적으로 개선하고 다중대표소송을 도입하는 것이다. 그런데 대표소송제도의 개선에 관한 개정안의 경우에는 명확한 근거 없이 노동조합이나 근로자대표에게도 제소자격을 부여하고 있고, 회사가 이사를 상대로 소송을 제기한 경우에도 모든 주주들에게 그 사실과 내용을 통지․공고하도록 의무화하고 있으며, 제소주주의 정보취득권을 제도적으로 보장하기 위해 도입한 회계장부열람청구권 등의 경우에는 다른 주주들과의 형평성이 결여되어 있고, 회사와 직접적인 법률관계가 없는 대표소송의 변호사에게 그 보수와 관련하여 회사에 대한 직접청구권까지 부여할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 이런 점을 종합할 때 대표소송제도의 개선에 관한 개정안의 상당부분은 전면적인 재검토가 필요하다. 한편 다중대표소송의 도입을 위한 개정안의 경우에는 먼저 다중대표소송의 적용범위를 손자회사까지로 한정하고, 100% 완전모자회사로 적용대상을 한정하여 제한적으로 도입․운영하되 다중대표소송을 회피하기 위해 주식을 처분하는 경우에 대한 보완책을 강구해야 하며, 제소요건의 완화에 따른 오남용을 방지할 수 있는 대책을 마련해야 하고, 제소할 때 법원의 사전허가를 받도록 규제하는 것은 지나친 제약이므로 삭제해야 한다. 이처럼 이 경우에도 전면적인 재검토가 필요하다. 그리고 주의할 것은 잘못된 개정으로 인한 국민경제적 피해에 대해서는 사실상 그 누구도 책임지지 않으므로 보다 세밀한 연구검토가 필요하다는 점이다.

상법 제814조에 관련된 최근의 판례 검토

정준우 한국상사법학회 2020 商事法硏究 Vol.38 No.4

Under the Commercial Act, the liability of the consignor or the consignee of the sea carrier shall be terminated without agreement in any trial within one year from the date of delivery or on the date of delivery to the consignee, regardless of the cause of the claim, but this period may be extended by agreement of the parties(Article 814 (1)). And if the consignor or the consignee has made an agreement with the carrier or made a legal claim to the carrier within the period of paragraph 1, if the sea carrier has entrusted the transportation to a third party, three months have elapsed since the date of the agreement or claim. The liability of the sea carrier to that third party shall not be extinguished in spite of paragraph 1(Artcile 814 (2)). There has been controversy over the interpretation of Article 814 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, and three recent Supreme Court cases have been issued. Thus, this paper examines the matters dealt with in the Supreme Court case and the lower court case by dividing them into major issues and related issues, and sought reasonable improvements. First, whether the completion of contract execution by the sea carrier, the scope of the just consignee, the starting point of the expulsion period, and the period extended by agreement by extension, in addition to the expiration period of paragraph 1, are included in the 'period of paragraph 1' specified in paragraph 2. The Supreme Court's judgment as to whether or not it makes sense is relevant when considering the purpose of the legislation. However, it is a pity that we did not clearly determine when the ʻdelivery dateʼ will be calculated. Second, the Supreme Court's decision on how to determine the legal status of the mixed carrier and the laws that apply to the multimodal transport is valid, but it is a pity that the multimodal carrier has not clearly identified the process of becoming a party to a contract of carriage. Third, in the case of Article 816 (2) based on network liability system, there is a debate about the meaning of the regulations applied to the section with the longest distance and the most expensive section. Fourth, even if the legislative purpose of prompt stabilization of legal relations is taken into consideration, the application of a short period of time even if there is a deliberate or serious negligence on the sea carrier should be excluded, because it is too unreasonable for the carriers and consignees in relatively poor positions. 해상운송인의 송하인 또는 수하인에 대한 손해배상책임은 그 청구원인에 관계없이 수하인에게 운송물을 인도한 날 또는 인도할 날부터 1년 이내에 재판상청구가 없으면 소멸하는데, 이 기간은 당사자의 합의로 연장할 수 있다. 그리고해상운송인이 제3자에게 운송을 위탁한 경우에 송하인 또는 수하인이 동 기간내에 운송인과 배상합의를 하거나 운송인에게 재판상 청구를 하였다면 그 합의또는 청구가 있은 날부터 3개월이 경과하기 전에는 그 제3자에 대한 해상운송인의 책임은 제1항에도 불구하고 소멸하지 않는데, 해상운송인과 그 제3자 간에위 단서와 동일한 취지의 약정이 있는 경우에도 같다. 이러한 상법 제814조의해석과 관련하여 그동안 논란이 있었는데, 최근에 이에 관한 대법원 판례가 3건나왔다. 이에 본고에서는 대법원 판례와 하급심 판결에서 다룬 사항들을 주요쟁점과 관련문제로 구분하여 검토하며 합리적인 해석론과 개선방안을 모색하였다. 먼저 주요쟁점인 해상운송인의 계약이행 완료시점, 정당한 수하인의 포섭범위, 단기 제척기간의 기산점, 제척기간의 도과 여부가 법원의 직권조사사항인지여부, 제814조 제2항의 ʻ제1항의 기간ʼ에 제1항 본문의 제척기간 외에 단서의 합의연장기간도 포함되는지에 관한 대법원의 판단은 해상운송의 특성과 해상운송인의 운송종료의무 및 제814조 제2항의 입법취지를 고려할 때 타당하다. 다만제소기간의 기산점인 ʻ운송물을 인도할 날ʼ이 언제인지를 명확히 판단하지 않은것은 아쉽다. 다음으로 관련문제인 복합운송주선인의 법적 지위, 복합운송에서의적용법규 확정방법에 관한 대법원 판례는 타당하지만, 복합운송주선인이 운송계약의 당사자로 되는 과정을 명확히 확인하지 않은 점은 아쉽다. 또한 이종책임주의에 기초한 제816조 제2항의 경우 운송거리가 가장 긴 구간에 적용되는 법규 및 운임이 가장 비싼 구간에 적용되는 법규 등에 관한 논란이 지속되고 있으므로 이를 좀 더 명확히 규정할 필요가 있고, 비록 법률관계의 조속한 안정이라는 입법취지를 감안하더라도 해상운송인에게 고의·중과실이 있는 경우에도단기 제척기간을 적용하는 것은 상대적으로 열악한 지위의 송하인과 수하인에게너무 불합리하므로 제외하는 것이 타당하다.

감사위원회의 법적 지위와 그 문제점

정준우 한국비교사법학회 2001 비교사법 Vol.8 No.1

주주대표소송의 원고적격에 관한 쟁점사항 검토

정준우 한국기업법학회 2005 企業法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

Under the Commercial Law, the shareholder with at least one percent of the total outstanding shares may bring a derivative suit designed to apply to single derivative suit against the directors. And the derivative suit is an efficient method to raise transparency of corporate management and to improve corporate governance. Recently, the Seoul High Court decided for the first time that a double derivative suit could be permitted through an interpretation of the Commercial Law §403. But the Supreme Court has interpreted strictly the Commercial Law §403 that the double derivative suit is not permitted under the current Commercial Code, because the rule of single derivative suit is not applicable to shareholder of parent or controlling company; the parent or controlling company differs from subsidiary company in the legal personality. The demand requirement of the derivative suit under the current Commercial Law and the Securities Exchange Act has many problems such as the problems of concept of the shareholder and of minority shareholder right etc.. Thus I analyzed the legal problems of demand requirement of the derivative suit under the current laws in this paper. And I proposed the reform measures for settlement of such problems of demand requirement of the derivative suit in comparison with U.S. derivative suit system.

Development of Anti-Spoofing Equipment Architecture and Performance Evaluation Test System

정준우,박성열,현종철,강해각,송기원,김갑진,박영범 사단법인 항법시스템학회 2018 Journal of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Vol.7 No.3

Spoofing attacks including meaconing can provide a bogus position to a victim GPS receiver, and those attacks are notably difficult to detect at the point of view on the receiver. Several countermeasure techniques have been studied to detect, classify, and cancel the spoofing signals. Based on the countermeasure techniques, we have developed an anti-spoofing equipment that detects and mitigates or eliminates the spoofing signal based on raw measurements. Although many anti-spoofing techniques have been studied in the literatures, the evaluation test system is not deeply studied to evaluate the anti-spoofing equipment, which includes detection, mitigation, and elimination of spoofing signals. Each study only has a specific test method to verify its anti-spoofing technique. In this paper, we propose the performance evaluation test system that includes both spoofing signal injection system and its injection scenario with the constraints of stand-alone anti-spoofing techniques. The spoofing signal injection scenario is designed to drive a victim GPS receiver that moves to a designed position, where the mitigation and elimination based anti-spoofing algorithms can be successively evaluated. We evaluate the developed antispoofing equipment and a commercial GPS receiver using our proposed performance evaluation test system. Although the commercial one is affected by the test system and moves to the designed position, the anti-spoofing equipment mitigates and eliminates the injected spoofing signals as planned. We evaluate the performance of anti-spoofing equipment on the position error of the circular error probability, while injecting spoofing signals.