증권거래소가 행하는 상장결정 및 상장폐지결정의 법적 의미

문일호 ( Il Ho Moon ),신병동 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.49

What is the legal nature of the listing decision and the delisting decision that The Korea Exchange("The Exchange") makes? The answer of this question is significant in that the form of lawsuit is determined under it. If the legal nature of the delisting decision comes under "administrative measure" regulated in Administrative Litigation Act 2 ①, companys and investors into such company should initiate administrative lawsuit against The Exchange. If not, they should raise civil lawsuits. So far, there have been several arguments about the legal nature of the delisting decision that The Korea Securities Dealers Association (KSDA) or The Exchange makes. And judical precedents of the Supreme Court and The Constitutional Court were established. Now although the nature of Exchange is changed from membership system into a stock company, it is thought that the previous arguments are also available. The latest lower court decisions follow also the former precedents of the Supreme Court. This writer has come to the conclusion that the legal nature of the delisting decision of Exchange doesn`t come under "administrative measure" as object of an administrative lawsuit, because the Exchange doesn`t fall under "administrative office" as the subject of an "administrative measure". This writer thinks that the delisting decision has the legal nature as declaration of intention that The Exchange terminates the listing contract between itself and the listing company. Up to now, on the contrary, it has not been debated about the legal nature of the Exchange`s listing decision. The reason is seemingly thaught to this writer that the applicant for listing doesn`t engage in controversy against the Exchange about the Exchange`s disapproval of listing. This writer has come to the conclusion that the Exchange`s listing decision has the legal nature as declaration of intention of consent for the applicant`s listing application.

우회상장 규제의 현황 및 개선 검토

장인봉(Jang, In?Bong) 한국증권법학회 2010 증권법연구 Vol.11 No.2

우회상장은 증권시장에 신규로 진입하지 않고 기존의 상장기업과 합병, 주식교환 등의 방식으로 결합함으로써 상장의 효과를 거두는 경우를 말한다. 이러한 우회상장은 상장비용 및 기간을 절약시켜 주고, 상장기업의 자금 및 영업 노하우를 활용하게 해주며, 자금조달창구인 거래소시장에 보다 쉽게 접근할 수 있도록 하는 등 긍정적인 효과의 M&A 수단을 제공한다. 그러나 우회상장은 엄격한 신규상장 요건의 회피, 부실기업의 상장수단 악용 등 부정적인 측면을 가지고 있다. 특히, 2005년부터 바이오·엔터테인먼트 등 테마주 열풍이 불면서 관련업종의 비상장기업이 상장기업과 합병, 주식교환 등을 통해 막대한 상승차익을 취한 후 부도가 나는 등 사회적인 병리현상이 초래되자 우회상장 관리제도를 강화하여 합병뿐 아니라 포괄적 주식교환, 영업·자산양수 및 현물출자까지 규제대상을 확대하고 요건을 보완하였다. 이 논문은 먼저 우회상장의 의의 및 동향을 통해 기본적인 이해를 돕고 정부 감독 당국의 합병규제와 거래소의 우회상장 규제간 그 취지 및 차이점을 비교하고, 우회상장 규제의 역사를 증권거래법(現자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률), 금융감독위원회(現금융위원회) 규정, 증권거래소(現한국거래소) 상장규정 등 관련 법규를 통해 조명해 봄으로써 그 철학과 흐름을 파악할 수 있도록 하였다. 다음으로 미국 및 일본의 우회상장 규제체계 및 현황을 통해 글로벌스탠더드를 살펴본 후, 우회상장 규제주체의 불명료성, 우회상장을 이용한 내부자거래에 대한 규제 미비 등의 문제점을 검토하고 개선방안을 나름대로 제시하였다. 우회상장 규제주체의 불명료성을 해소하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 우회상장 규제의 근거가 자본시장법상 상장기업과 비상장기업간의 합병특례조항이 아니라 거래소의 상장규정 제정·운영권한임을 명확히 하고, 거래소의 우회상장 규제를 위반하더라도 행정제재까지 받는다는 해석이 가능한 법령상 상장규정 준수 문구를 삭제함으로써 중복규제의 문제를 해소할 필요가 있다고 보았다. 또한 금융위원회 등 정부의 유권해석이나 입법적인 개선 등을 통해 우회상장기업의 내부자도 미공개정보 이용의 책임을 지도록 명확히 개선할 필요가 있음을 제안하였다. 우리나라에서 우회상장이 글로벌스탠더드에 맞는 선진화된 M&A 수단으로 정착하기 위해서는 부실기업 상장 등 부정적인 측면에 대한 규제를 강화함과 동시에, 벤처자금 회수, 기업구조조정, 자금조달 등의 수단이라는 긍정적인 측면을 살릴 수 있도록 SPAC과 같은 건전화 장치도 계속하여 개발해 나가는 정부, 거래소 및 시장 참가자 모두의 노력이 중요할 것이다. Backdoor listing refers to gaining a listing on a securities exchange by an unlisted company not through the regular procedures of listing but through acquisition, merger or stock swaps with a listed company. The backdoor listing has provided positive effects of M&As by assisting companies to spare time and expenses incurred in listing procedures, utilize capital and business knowhow of the listed company and get an easier access to exchange market to raise the capital. Aside from its advantages, however, the backdoor listing has also showed negative aspects such as escape from strict listing requirements and abusive use by companies with low performances. Especially since 2005, the craze for so?called “thematic issues” including those of bio?technology and entertainment industries has often led to social ills as corporate raiders of unlisted companies of such industries took huge profits from merger and stock swaps with listed companies then left it bankrupt. To address such problems, regulations on the backdoor listing have been strengthened to expand the coverage of regulation to various forms of backdoor listing such as stock swap, business swap and stock for stock, compared to the former regulation that was only focused on M &A which was a typical type of backdoor listing. This study first attempts to help understanding of basic concept and recent trend of backdoor listing, compare the main points and differences between the statutory regulation on M&A by the government authorities and regulation on backdoor listing by the Exchange and then help readers understand the principles and the stance of the regulatory system on backdoor listing by enlightening the history of relevant laws and regulations including the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services Act(former “Securities Exchange Act”), the relevant rules of the Financial Services Commission(former “Financial Supervisory Commission”) and the listing rules of the Korea Exchange(former “Korea Stock Exchange”). Then, after taking a close look at the regulatory system and the current situations of backdoor listing in the United States and Japan, this study examines current regulatory problems such as the lack of clarity in main agent of regulation and inadequate regulation on insider trading entailed in backdoor listing and then suggests several measures for improvement. In order to address the unclarity of main agent in regulation on backdoor listing, this article first suggests making clear that the basis of regulation on backdoor listing is the listing regulations of the Exchange, not the exceptional clauses for M&A between listed companies and unlisted companies on the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services Act. Also, it is necessary to eliminate duplicative regulation by deleting provisions that can be interpreted as violation of the regulation of the Exchange on backdoor listing is subject to administrative sanction. Furthermore, it is suggested that authoritative interpretations by the government agency such as the Financial Services Commission or legislative improvement should be made to make it clear that insiders of unlisted companies are also subject to the relevant regulations to insider trading. In order for backdoor listing to settle down in Korea as an advanced means of M &A compatible with the global standards, coordinated efforts by the government, the Exchange and market participants should be made to reinforce the regulations on its negative aspects and to strengthen its positive aspects at the same time such as reclamation of venture capital, corporate restructuring and capital raising by developing sound mechanism including SPAC, for example.

증권거래소의 상장법인에 대한 상장폐지결정에서의 실무상 쟁점

문일호 서강대학교 법학연구소 2009 서강법학 Vol.11 No.1

There are several practical legal issues in relation to the delisiting decision by the Korea Securities Exchange(hereinafter as "the Exchange"); The legal nature of the Exchange, the listing regulation of the Exchange and the delisting decision by the Exchange; the legal instrument of listing company against delisting decision by the Exchange. This researcher reviewed arguments about above issues and actual lawsuit cases in relation to those. This researcher came to the conclusion that the nature of the Exchange is a private body corporation as stock company, the nature of legal relationship between the Exchange and listing company is also private contract relationship(not public), the listing regulation of the Exchange has the nature as a stipulation, the delisting decision by the Exchange has the nature as declaration of intention of the termination of the listing contract between the Exchange and the listing company. So, the delisted company by the Exchange has to bring a civil action(not administrative action) against the Exchange for wrongfulness of the delisting decision. There are several lawsuit cases related to the delisting decision by the Exchange. The court of justice handed down the decision that the delisting decision of the Exchange by reason of the outside auditor's opinion, dishonor of the paper or check issued by the listing company, capital invasion, non submission of the annual report and so on(we can say this as formal and merchenical delsiting reason) is lawful. The court judged that it is inevitable to set up a unificative and uniformed standard, and to enforce that strictly and mechanically. However, the court decided that it is unlawful to delist the company by the only reason of the filing for the company's revival to a court.

블록체인 기반 가상통화(IEO)의 거래소상장 연구

표춘미(Choonmi Pyo) 한국관리회계학회 2021 관리회계연구 Vol.21 No.3

[연구목적] 본 연구는 블록체인 기반 가상통화(IEO, Initial Exchange Offerings)의 거래소상장․상장폐지 현황과 가상통화거래소 상장제도 개선에 대해 시사점을 제시하고 가상통화의 투자적격성에 대해 평가한다. [연구방법] 국내 가상통화거래소의 상장·상장폐지현황, 상장심사기준 및 절차, 코스닥 시장의 기술특례상장과 마일스톤 공시에 대해 문헌고찰 한다. 산업통상자원부(2021.02)의 투자용 기술력 평가모형을 적용하여 사례토큰의 기술력 평가등급을 산출한다. [연구결과] 기술특례상장, 마일스톤 공시, 그리고 가상통화 거래소상장 간의 특징을 분석하여 가상통화 거래소상장 개선을 위한 시사점을 도출한다. 가상통화의 기술력 평가등급을 산출하여 투자자에게 투자의사결정 정보를 제공한다. [연구의 시사점] 본 연구는 회계학 분야에서 블록체인 기반 가상통화의 거래소상장과 투자적격성을 평가한 초기 연구라는데 의의가 있다. 연구결과는 가상통화거래소 정책당국과 투자자에게 거래소상장 현황 및 개선사항 그리고 가상통화의 기술력 평가를 통한 투자적격성의 이해를 높이는데 유용한 정보를 제공할 것으로 기대된다. [Purpose] This study is to present implications for the exchange listing and delisting status of blockchain-based virtual currencies (IEO, Initial Exchange Offerings) and improvement of the virtual currency exchange listing system, and to evaluate the investment eligibility of virtual currencies. [Methodology] Literature review on the status of listing and delisting of domestic virtual currency exchanges, listing screening criteria and procedures, technical special listing on the KOSDAQ market, and milestone disclosure. The evaluation grade of the case token is calculated by applying the investment technology evaluation model of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (2021.02). [Findings] The results of this study analyze the characteristics of technical special listing, milestone announcement, and virtual currency exchange listing, and draw implications for improving virtual currency exchange listing. It provides investment decision-making information to investors by calculating the technology evaluation grade of virtual currency. [Implications] This study is meaningful in that it is an initial study on the listing of a blockchain-based virtual currency on an exchange in the accounting field. The results of the study are expected to provide useful information to virtual currency exchange policy authorities and investors to increase their understanding of virtual currency exchange listing status and improvements, and virtual currency investment eligibility.

A Study on Demutualization of Stock Exchanges -Focusing on the Case of Korea Exchange-

정누리 한국증권법학회 2011 증권법연구 Vol.12 No.3

Demutualization generally refers to the process of reorganizing a mutualized, or member-owned, entity into a for-profit corporation with shareholders, and demutualization of stock exchanges means a process of converting exchanges from non-profit, member- owned organizations to for-profit, investor-owned stock corporations. The process of demutualization proceeds in several steps. Exchange demutualization commences when the membership of a traditional non-profit organization that operates a stock exchange reorganizes the exchange as a for-profit institution, and concludes when the exchange goes public and thus become listed. Nowadays demutualization of stock exchanges is no longer unusual. Many stock exchanges around the world have already demutualized in order to achieve economies of scale as a response to increased competition. In response to such phenomenon, the Korea Exchange (KRX) announced its self-listing plan in the end of February 2011, purporting to make it easier to participate in the ongoing consolidation of global stock exchanges. KRX takes form of a stock company, but has not gone public yet. Thus being a listed exchange means the completion of demutualization to KRX. The exchange began to push for its self-listing from 2003, but the current situation around KRX is somewhat different from before, because since January 29, 2009 the exchange has been designated a public institution. The primary purpose of this paper is to study demutualization of KRX and related legal issues. Before examining the case of KRX, the paper first provides overview of exchange demutualization and discusses its implications.

A Study on Demutualization of Stock Exchanges

Jung, Nu Ri(정누리) 한국증권법학회 2012 증권법연구 Vol.12 No.3

디뮤추얼라이제이션이란 일반적으로 제한된 조직원만을 대상으로 하는 배타적 단체가 회원제 영리법인으로 체제를 개편하는 과정을 말한다. 한편 증권선물거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제이션이란 거래소가 조직원 소유의 비영리단체에서 주주 소유의 영리목적 주식회사로 전환되는 과정을 의미한다. 증권선물거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제이션은 증권거래소가 기존의 비영리 배타적 회원제 조직에서 주식회사제의 영리법인으로 조직개편되는 단계의 시점에서부터 증권거래소가 공시상장되는 단계의 기점까지, 여러 단계를 거쳐 진행된다. 오늘날 증권선물거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제이션은 더이상 생소하지 않다. 치열해지는 경쟁 속에서 전세계의 이미 많은 증권선물거래소들이 디뮤추얼라이제이션 단행을 통해 규모의 경제를 추구하고 있다. 세계 대형 거래소간 활발히 일어나고 있는 인수·합병의 추세에 대응하고자 2011년 2월말 한국거래소는 기업공개계획을 발표하였다. 한국거래소는 주식회사의 형태를 취하고 있으나 그 기업공개는 아직 이루어지 않았다. 따라서 한국거래소가 상장된 거래소가 된다는 것은, 이는 곧 마침내 한국거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제이션이 완성된다는 것을 의미한다. 한국거래소는 지난 2003년부터 기업공개를 추진해 왔지만, 2009년 1월 29일부터 한국거래소가 공공기관으로 지정됨에 따라 현 상황은 기존과 다소 다르다. 본고는 한국거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제이션 및 이와 관련된 법적인 문제를 다루는 것을 주요 목적으로 한다. 한국거래소 관련 사안을 본격적으로 다루기에 앞서, 본고는 먼저 증권선물거래소의 디뮤추얼라이제션 전반적인 개요 및 그 의미에 대해 검토한다. Demutualization generally refers to the process of reorganizing a mutualized, or member-owned, entity into a for-profit corporation with shareholders, and demutualization of stock exchanges means a process of converting exchanges from non-profit, member-owned organizations to for-profit, investor-owned stock corporations. The process of demutualization proceeds in several steps. Exchange demutualization commences when the membership of a traditional non-profit organization that operates a stock exchange reorganizes the exchange as a forprofit institution, and concludes when the exchange goes public and thus become listed. Nowadays demutualization of stock exchanges is no longer unusual. Many stock exchanges around the world have already demutualized in order to achieve economies of scale as a response to increased competition. In response to such phenomenon, the Korea Exchange (KRX) announced its self-listing plan in the end of February 2011, purporting to make it easier to participate in the ongoing consolidation of global stock exchanges. KRX takes form of a stock company, but has not gone public yet. Thus being a listed exchange means the completion of demutualization to KRX. The exchange began to push for its self-listing from 2003, but the current situation around KRX is somewhat different from before, because since January 29, 2009 the exchange has been designated a public institution. The primary purpose of this paper is to study demutualization of KRX and related legal issues. Before examining the case of KRX, the paper first provides overview of exchange demutualization and discusses its implications.

시장의 관점에서 본 우회상장의 정책 효과

엄경식(Kyong Shik Eom),박종호(Jong Ho Park),이진호(Jin Ho Lee) 한국증권학회 2011 한국증권학회지 Vol.40 No.1

본 논문은 기업의 관점이 아니라 시장의 관점에서 한국의 우회상장 관련 정책을 살펴본 연구이다. 특히 상장 및 우회상장이 기업의 일방적 의사결정에 의한 것이 아니라 시장 및 정책담당자가 정한 상장요건에 따라 기업이 전략적으로 대응한 동태적 상호작용이라는 점에 주목하였다. 이를 바탕으로 본 논문은 코스닥시장이 우회상장의 폐해를 개선하기 위해 전략적으로 대응하여 도입한 규제강화조치(2006. 6)가 우회상장의 긍정적 측면을 실현하는 데 효과적이었는지, 그리고 우회상장이라는 제도가 상장의 한 방식으로서 주식시장에 부여하는 의미가 무엇인지에 대해 시장미시구조 및 정책적 관점에 초점을 두고 고찰하였다. 2004년부터 2007년까지 합병을 통해 코스닥시장에 진입한 우회상장기업을 주요 분석대상으로 하며, 일중 거래 및 호가자료로 추정한 시장미시구조 변수를 분석에 활용하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 코스닥시장에 진입한 우회상장기업은 규제강화조치 이후에 코스닥시장의 질적수준을 보다 제고시키는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 우회상장대상기업이 제공하는 시장의 질적 수준도 규제강화조치 이후 훨씬 높게 나타났으며, 규제강화조치 이후 IPO와 정량적으로 동일 요건을 갖췄음에도 불구하고 우회상장을 선택한 것을 시장에서는 부정적 신호로 인식하기 시작하였다. 이는 당시 규제강화조치가 정책적으로 효과가 있었음을 시사한다. 둘째, 규제강화조치 이후 시장에 진입한 우회상장기업에 대한 시장의 질적 수준은 크게 향상되었지만 IPO기업보다는 여전히 낮게 형성되는 것으로 나타나, 코스닥시장이 IPO기업에 대해 행하고 있는 질적 심사가 시장의 질적 수준을 개선하는 데 상당히 의미 있는 절차임을 시사한다. 이상의 모든 결과는 우회상장이라는 경제현상자체가 부정적 의미만을 내포하는 것은 아니며, 시장개설자인 거래소 및 정책담당자가 상장요건과 같은 관련 제도를 통해 전략적으로 적절히 조정하여 대응하기만 하면 우회상장이 지닌 긍정적 측면을 얼마든지 구현할 수 있음을 시사한다. To correct the negative effects of the back-door listing, in June 2006, KOSDAQ strengthened the back-door listing standards to the same quantitative level as the initial public offerings (IPOs) require (hereafter referred as the 2006 Regulatory Change). However, firms entering KOSDAQ by the back-door listing do not need to meet the qualitative listing standards as IPOs must meet. We examine whether the 2006 Regulatory Change was effective to realize the positive features of back-door listing. We also attempt to observe the implications that the back-door listing, as a listing method, provides for the Korean stock market. We conduct all the analyses focusing on market and policy maker`s viewpoints. We find that the following results occurred after the 2006 Regulatory Change. First, the firms that entered KOSDAQ by back-door listing improved the market quality significantly. Second, the target firms for back-door listing also increased the market quality, and the KOSDAQ market itself started to evaluate the back-door listing as it is, not overvalue it. Third, in spite of the positive features above, the market quality for back-door listing firms is still lower for IPO firms, which suggests that the qualitative assessment for IPO firms conducted by KOSDAQ is a meaningful step to improve the market quality. Taken together, our findings suggest that the back-door listing does not have only negative aspects as the critics claim; if the market and policy makers response strategically to the market conditions with associated listing standards, then the positive aspects of back-door listing will be able to be realized.

A Survey of Diabetic Educators and Patients for the Revision of Korean Food Exchange Lists

조재원,권미라,박영미,우미혜,유혜숙,임정현,구보경,김종화,김혜진,박재선,신충호,원규장,임수,장학철 대한당뇨병학회 2011 Diabetes and Metabolism Journal Vol.35 No.2

Background: Food exchange lists are one of the main methods of nutritional education. However, Korean food exchange lists have not been revised since 1994. Therefore, we surveyed the opinions of diabetes educators and patients with diabetes regarding the need for revision of the current food exchange lists. Methods: For two weeks beginning on 10 March 2008, a 12-item questionnaire regarding the opinion and need for revision of the current food exchange lists was e-mailed to diabetes educators nationwide. Another 15-question survey was administered to patients with diabetes in 13 hospitals located in the Seoul and Gyeonggi regions of Korea. Results: We obtained survey responses from 101 diabetes educators and 209 patients; 65 (64.3%) of the educators answered that the current food exchange lists should be revised. The items that needed revision were the glycemic index, addition of new foods and reaffirmation of exchange standard amounts. The patients demanded specific education about choosing appropriate foods, a balanced meal plan, proper snacks, and dining intake. Conclusion: Our survey results demonstrate the need to revise the Korean food exchange lists. This process should focus on glycemic index, the addition of new foods and reconfirmation of one exchange reference unit.

나트륨 실측치와 식품교환표 및 식품성분표를 이용한 추정치의 비교

권용주(Yongju Kwon),이무용(Mooyong Rhee),김지영(Jeeyoung Kim),권광일(Kwangil Kwon),김소진(Sojin Kim),신희준(Heejun Shin),박성수(Seongsoo Park),이은주(Eunju Lee),박혜경(Hyekyung Park),박용순(Yongsoon Park) 한국식품영양과학회 2010 한국식품영양과학회지 Vol.39 No.4

나트륨의 과잉섭취가 고혈압의 주요한 위험요인으로 알려져 있는데, 한국인의 성인 하루 평균 소금 섭취량은 영양섭취기준보다 3배 이상 높다. 본 연구에서는 식품교환표를 이용하여 14일간의 식단을 작성하고 조리된 음식의 나트륨 함량을 실제로 측정한 후 식품교환표와 식품성분표에서 계산된 나트륨 추정치와 비교하여, 각각 방법의 정확성 및 문제점을 파악하고자 하였다. 그 결과를 요약하면 아래와 같다. 하루 식단의 나트륨 함량에서 식품교환표로 계산한 추정치는 실측치와 유의한 차이가 났으나, 식품성분표는 실측치와 유사하였다. 음식별 절대값의 비교에서는 식품교환표로 계산한 나트륨 추정치와 식품성분표로 계산한 나트륨 추정치가 모두 실측치와 유의한 차이가 났다. 음식군별 절대값 비교에서는 양념류의 나트륨 함량이 많은 주요리, 부식, 국물요리에서 상당히 유의한 차이가 났으며, 식품교환표로 계산한 추정치, 식품성분표로 계산한 추정치, 실측치간의 차이가 큰 음식들이 모두 주요리, 부식, 국물요리였다. 이상의 결과에 따르면, 단순히 하루 식단의 나트륨 함량 비교에서 식품교환표에 비해 식품성분표의 나트륨 함량이 더 정확하다고 생각할 수 있지만, 음식별 또는 음식군별로 추정치와 실측치간의 차이를 절대값으로 비교한 결과, 식품교환표와 식품성분표의 나트륨 함량 모두 실측치와 차이가 컸다. 특히 나트륨 과잉 섭취의 주요 원인으로 보고되는 양념류의 차이로 장류, 김치 등의 사용이 많은 한국음식에서 식품교환표와 식품성분표를 이용한 추정치와 실측치의 차이가 컸다. 따라서 고혈압 및 신장질환 환자를 위한 저염식단작성시 식품교환표나 식품성분표를 사용할 때 실제 소금량과의 차이를 고려해야한다. Excessive intake of sodium is known as a risk factor for hypertension, and Korean adults consume sodium 3 times higher than Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference on sodium content between analyzed and estimated by food composition table and food exchange list. Seven days of low salt diet and seven days of high salt diet were prepared, and sodium contents were estimated by food composition table and food exchange list and measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Sodium contents of diet per day estimated by food exchange list significantly differed from analyzed content, but those estimated by food composition table were not. However, when absolute differences from analyzed content were compared by dishes in the low and high salt diet periods, there were significant differences among estimated sodium content by food composition table and food exchange list and analyzed sodium content. The discrepancy between those results was due to that absolute value was used to compare sodium contents of dishes but not to compare sodium contents of days. In addition, main dish, side dish, and soup were significantly different among estimated sodium content by food composition table and food exchange list and analyzed sodium content. Actual sodium contents of Jap-Chae Deop-Bap and Roasted chicken with oyster sauce differed to a great extent from estimated contents by food exchange list and food composition table. In conclusion, actual sodium contents of Korean dishes were significantly different from those estimated by food composition table and food exchange list, and thus these differences in salt content should be considered on planning of low-salt menu for hypertensive patients.

우회상장 규제의 역사와 현황 및 개선방안

성희활(Hye-Hwal Seong) 한국기업법학회 2020 企業法硏究 Vol.34 No.1

이 논문은 거래소 우회상장에 관하여 수십 년의 역사를 개관하고 현행 제도의 내용과 문제점 및 개선방안을 제시하였다. 요지는 우회상장의 기회를 거의 차단하는 현행의 엄격한 우회 상장 규제를 완화하여 건전한 M&A를 활성화시킴으로써 기업구조조정과 사업 확장을 도모할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 이를 위해서 현행 규제를 완화하는 방안으로 제시한 것은 첫째, 선심사․후상장에서 선상장․후감시로 규제 패러다임 전환이다. 즉 현행 우회상장 요건을 상당 폭 완화하여 보다 용이한 시장 진입을 허용하되, 일단 시장에 들어온 기업에 대하여 엄격한 감시를 통하여 상장법인의 부실화를 방지하자는 것이다. 둘째, 질적 심사의 완화이다. 일정한 요건을 갖춘 우량법인과 지배구조와 내부통제가 우수한 비상장법인의 경우 질적 심사 시 계속성 요건을 면제하는 것이다. 셋째, 기업인수목적회사(SPAC) 제도 개선인데, 합병 시 SPAC이 존속법인이 됨으로써 발생하는 문제들을 해소할 것과 SPAC을 통한 우회상장과 일반 우회상장의 경우를 동일하게 하자는 것 등이다. 현행 규제를 보완하는 방안으로는 우회상장 유형의 포괄주의를 보다 강화하여 실효성과 예측가능성을 갖출 필요가 있다는 것과, 우회상장 관련 미공개정보를 이용하는 교차거래 형태의 내부자거래가 현행 자본시장법상 규제가 어려우므로 법률 개정이 필요하다는 것이다. This paper outlines the decades history of backdoor listing and presents the contents, problems, and proposals for betterment of the current system. The point is that it is necessary to promote corporate restructuring and business expansion by easing the current strict backdoor listing regulation that almost blocks the opportunity for reverse mergers, thereby promoting sound M & A. To this end, the proposal for mitigating the current regulations is to first change the regulatory paradigm from preliminary screening and post-listing to pre-listing and post-monitoring. In other words, it will ease the current backdoor listing requirements considerably and make it easier to enter the market, but seek to prevent the unhealthiness of listed companies through strict monitoring. Second is the easing of qualitative screening. A good company with certain requirements and a non-listed company with good governance and internal control are exempt from the continuity requirement in the qualitative examination. Third, to improve the SPAC system, to resolve the problems caused by the SPAC becoming a surviving company in the merger, and to make the same case of backdoor listing through SPAC and normal listing. To complement the existing regulations requires first, strengthening the inclusive definition for various backdoor listing types to ensure effectiveness and predictability. Second, cross-transactions by insiders using non-public information related to backdoor listings are not regulated under the current Capital Market Act, so the Act needs to be amended.