http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 강대섭 (검색결과 67 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
금융투자상품 개념의 포괄주의와 기능별 영업행위 규제의 검토
강대섭 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.1
Financial investment goods differ from most other commodities in which people deal. Their value depends on the profitability or future prospects of the corporation, or the agreement between parties. Former system has regulated the financial firms severally. There were many differences in the contents and procedures of regulation. It has weaken the financial innovation. ‘Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’(FSCMA) defines the financial investment goods comprehensively, and allows the financial investment firm to treat many types of financial investment businesses. The Act has many measures to protect the investors from the unfair solicitation of investment, conflicts of interests between the business sectors, and so on. In this article, I will review the background of the Act, analyse the comprehensive definition of financial investment goods, securities and derivatives, functional regulation and investor protection. In connection to these topics, I will inquire into the relevant cases. In conclusion, I think that the financial investment firms will design, sell and deal the various new financial investment goods through the financial innovation, and develop and diversify the revenue structure. And it will improve the competitiveness of financial investment firms. It will lead to the investor protection and the development of capital market.
-
-
-
-
-
不實企業의 公開ㆍ上場과 關係者의 責任 : 서울지법 1994.5.6.선고 92가 합11689 판결을 중심으로
강대섭 창원대학교 사회과학연구소 1995 사회과학연구 Vol.1 No.-
The goal of the Securities Exchange Act is to promote investor protection and to maintain the fair and orderly securities market. The Act is fundamentally premised on the disclosure of adequate and truthful information. Investors under certain conditions may recover their losses resulting from a registration statement and prospectus which contains a material misrepresentation or nondisclosure and from insider trading. The provisions most likely to be invoked in this context is Sections 14 and 188-3 of the Act. Recently, Seoul District Court has passed judgement on parties subject to a liability, causation proof, due diligence defence, measures of damages and so on. This article discusses the controversial issues, particularly in a this case, of civil liabilities.
-
-
강대섭 부산대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학연구 Vol.64 No.4
It is an established principle that corporate shareholders can participate in the management of the company by exercising voting rights in proportion to the number of shares owned, and as co-owners and investors of the company, they can receive profit dividends or distribution of residual assets from the company according to the same principle. The protection of Shareholders’ rights regarding dominant interests and property interests is an essential requirement of the Company Law that must be taken into consideration when a corporation issues shares or carries out the reorganization of company. In response to changes in the economic environment, the Company Law has introduced the cash-out merger and the acquisition of all the shares of minority shareholders, etc. to change or reorganize a corporate mechanism or business. These statutes aim to advance the efficient and flexible operation of the company. At this time, the basic principle is to maintain the status of shareholders or their investment opportunities. But in the interest of advancing the efficient and flexible operation of the company, cash-out merger, etc. should be permitted in spite of the opposition of minorities. At this time, it is necessary to protect minority shareholders who will lose, in effect, their shareholder status against their will. As one of the methods, it is examined whether the company's business purposes is necessary to eliminate the minority shareholders. While introducing the acquisition of all minority shares, the Company Law strictly establishes the qualifications of controlling shareholder and requires the legitimate business purpose as an affirmative requirement. But it does not set this in the case of a freeze-out merger. As a result, it is questionable whether the mere fact that the merger ratio is fair and that the opposite shareholders are given the appraisal right justifies the squeeze-out of minority shareholders and provides a enough protection for minority shareholders. In this paper, first I will describes the squeeze-out statutes in the Company Law. I will examine the function and meaning of legitimate business purpose according to whether it is stated as a requirement or not. Based on this, I will explain whether minority shareholders can be protected by invalidating a transaction for the squeeze-out of shareholders that has no valid business purpose or violates the equality of shareholders. Finally I will provide the conclusion about the limits of shareholder squeeze-out and the methods of protection of minority shareholders.
-
eArticle연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
