유한책임회사의 활성화 방안

유시창 경희대학교 법학연구소 2014 경희법학 Vol.49 No.4

The commercial law, which was amended from the day of April 12, 2012, was newly introduced a limited liability company in addition to the unlimited partnership company, stockholding company and limited company. Limited liability company is internally has essence of union and externally taken the form of company which's secure the member's limited liability, and also has intermediate form of human and material company. In Korea, stockholding company form is ideal form of company to managers, so regardless of scale of their companies or what they does, they prefer it. However, this tendency is not only causing unbalance of the form of company, but also being in a dilemma of law and reality, so it makes more difficult to apply the law. Therefore, the Commercial Law has introduced the Limited Liability Company form, which similar to LLC in USA and Associated Company in Japan for helping manager to take proper form of company in the light of their business type and solving the tendency. But now, 2 years after that amendment, establishment of the Limited Liability Companies is making slow progress and the tendency gets no better. In this study, we will examine firstly the progress and characteristic of the LLC in USA, and also examine Associated Company's in Japan which is newly created in 2005 and considered the same type of the LLC in light of the introduction background and its features. This study try to define the concept of Limited Liability Company clearly. Also we study the reason why investors still prefers stockholding company instead of the Limited Liability Company form which seems to be perfectly suitable for small business in Korea. The goal of this study, over the course of the above, will make up for the weak points of the Limited Liability Company form in Commercial Law and inspire small companies to use the Limited Liability Company form properly. 2012년 4월 12일부터 시행된 개정상법은 종래의 합명회사, 합자회사, 주식회사 그리고 유한회사의 4가지 회사형태 이외에 새로이 유한책임회사라는 새로운 형태의 회사를 도입하였다. 유한책임회사는 내부적으로는 조합의 실질을 갖추고 외부적으로는 사원의 유한책임이 확보되는 회사의 형태로서 인적 회사와 물적 회사의 중간 형태를 취하고 있다. 한국에서는 주식회사가 기업 운영자들이 원하는 이상적 형태를 가지고 있기 때문에 회사의 규모나 내용과 무관하게 주식회사를 선호한다. 그러나 이러한 경향은 회사 형태간의 불균형을 초래함은 물론 상법의 규정과 현실 사이에 괴리가 발생하여 법률을 적용하기 어렵게 하고 있다. 이에 상법은 기업가들로 하여금 자신의 사업유형에 맞는 기업형태에 대한 선택의 폭을 넓힘과 동시에 과도한 주식회사 집중 현상을 타개하기 위해 미국의 Limited Liability Company(이하 LLC)와 일본의 합동회사와 유사한 형태의 유한책임회사라는 형태를 허용했으나, 도입 이후 2년이 지난 현 시점에서 보면 유한책임회사의 설립이 활발하지 않음은 물론이고 주식회사에 대한 선호 현상도 여전하다. 따라서 본고에서는 우선 한국 유한책임회사의 모델이 되었다고 하는 미국의 LLC의 발전 과정 및 세부적 특징을 보고, 한국과 마찬가지로 미국의 LLC를 모델로 하여 2005년 일본의 회사법 상에 신설된 합동회사의 도입 배경과 특성을 검토하는 등 타국의 입법례를 바탕으로 유한책임회사의 미비점을 정리하고자 하였다. 아울러 본고에서는 상법에 유한책임회사 형태가 도입되었음을 계기로 과도한 주식회사 편중현상을 막고 출자자들로 하여금 그들이 설립 운영하려는 회사의 내용과 운영형태에 맞추어 유한책임회사를 활용하도록 하는 방안을 모색하고자 하였다.

아세안국가 기업법상 기업의 형태

정용상 ( Yong Sang Chuung ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.4

The company form stipulated by the company law in the ASEAN countries has the following characteristics: First, Vietnam laws stipulate limited liability company, joint-stock company, partnership, and private enterprise. Its feature is to approve one-man limited, and to illegalize one-man joint-stock company. Second, in Indonesian laws, there are three forms of companies of partnership, limited partnership, and public limited company. Among them, the first one is not a corporation, and one-man public limited company is disapproved. Third, in Philippine laws, companies are classified into further four forms of partnership, limited partnership, stock corporation, and non stock corporation as well as sole-trader enterprise. Partnership, and limited partnership are regulated by civil laws. And stock corporation, and non stock corporation are regulated by companies laws. They are characterized by having the corporate entity in common. Fourth, Laos laws defines four forms of company such as private company, state-run corporation, joint venture, and cooperative enterprise. Further, private company is classified into sole-trader enterprise, partnership enterprise, company, and cooperative enterprise consists of general partnership enterprise, and limited partnership enterprise. Furthermore, company is divided into limited company, and public company. Fifth, Cambodian laws approve partnership and company. The former consists of general partnership, and limited partnership, and the latter consists of private limited company, and public limited company. Six, in Myanmar laws, company is divided into limited liability company, and limited guarantee company according to the scope of partner’s liability; it is divided into limited company, and public company according to the freedom of stock transfer. Seventh, in Malaysia and Brunei laws, there are three kinds of company forms such as private enterprise, association enterprise, and corporation. The corporation largely takes the form of company, and the company is classified into four types such as company limited by shares, company limited by guarantee, and company limited by share guarantee, and unlimited company. Ninth, in Singapore laws there are three kinds of companies of private company, partnership company, and corporation. As the typical corporation, it can be cited: company limited by shares, company limited by guarantee, and unlimited company. Tenth, Thailand divides company into two forms of partnership and company. The former consists of ordinary partnership and limited partnership, and the latter, limited company and public company.

존립기간의 만료로 해산된 합자회사의 계속 관련 판결・법조문에 대한 해석론 또는 그 개선방안

문준우 은행법학회 2020 은행법연구 Vol.13 No.1

A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY shall be dissolved for the expiry of the period of existence, or any other reasons prescribed by the Articles of Incorporation(COMMERCIAL ACT subparagraphs 1 of Article 227, 269). 'Occurrence of reasons established by other articles of incorporation' may be problematic because it is comprehensive and abstract unlike other specific causes of dissolution of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY(for example, depending on what is written in the articles of incorporation, the system of dissolution of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY is malicious can be used as). Therefore, instead of eliminating the 'occurrence of reasons prescribed by other articles of incorporation' it is necessary to consider the specific conditions applicable to the 'occurrence of reasons prescribed by other articles of incorporation' in the COMMERCIAL ACT's Enforcement Decree. There are two unlimited liability members in the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY. One infinitely responsible member has lost the power to execute the task. However, another infinite liability member died, and it seems that the heir did not establish in the Articles of Incorporation that he could succeed to the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY's rights and obligations to the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY and become an member. In this case, it is advisable to establish a new law in the Commercial Act so that the inherited member's rights and duties are died by the resolution of a LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY's members. Even if the Article 278 of the COMMERCIAL ACT is interpreted as an arbitrary rule, the Article 278 of the COMMERCIAL ACT of “The limited liability member cannot perform the business of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY. However, a limited liability member may perform the business of a LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY by a valid resolution of the Articles of Incorporation or the member.” The limited liability member will be able to make the execution of the law legally clearer. (ⅰ) In order to enable competent and transparent limited liability members of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY to act as representatives of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY, (ii) the author argued that limited liability members of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY can perform the work. In the case of not establishing a business executive by the Articles of Incorporation, each member represents the company(COMMERCIAL ACT Article 207, Article 269). Therefore, if a business executive who is a limited liability member is defined as the Articles of Incorporation, the limited liability member is the sole representative of a LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY. (ⅲ) In the event that the sole limitless member's execution authority is lost, it would be better to make the limited liability member a representative of the LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY by the Articles of Incorporation or member's effective resolution. It would be nice to be able to do this representation. Although i think that the Article 278 of the COMMERCIAL ACT can be interpreted as an arbitrary rule, the Article 278 of the COMMERCIAL ACT can be interpreted as “limited liability members cannot act as representatives of a LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY. However, it would be good to think of the revision as “a limited liability member can act as a representative of a LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY” by the Articles of Incorporation or member's effective resolution. 1. 합자회사는 ‘존립기간의 만료 기타 정관으로 정한 사유의 발생’으로 인하여 해산한다(상법 제227조 제1호, 제269조). ‘기타 정관으로 정한 사유의 발생’은 합자회사의 다른 구체적인 해산원인과 다르게 포괄적・추상적이어서 문제가 생길 수 있다. 따라서 ‘기타 정관으로 정한 사유의 발생’을 없애는 대신에, ‘기타 정관으로 정한 사유의 발생’에 해당되는 구체적인 조건을 상법이 상법 시행령에 위임하는 것을 고려할 필요가 있다. 2. 상법 제229조 제1항에, 언제까지 동의하지 않은 사원을 퇴사한 것으로 봐야 되는지가 기재되어 있지 않다. 위와 같이 언제 퇴사한 것으로 봐야 되는 기준이 없으면, 법적으로 불확실해질 수 있다. 따라서 상법 제229조 제1항에 (ⅰ) 사원이 언제까지 동의하여야 되는지, (ⅱ) 언제까지 동의하지 않은 사원은 퇴사한 것으로 봐야 되는지가 포함되면, 법적 기준이 확실해질 것이다. 3. 합자회사에 2인의 무한책임사원이 있다. 1인의 무한책임사원은 업무집행권한이 상실된 상태이다. 그런데 다른 1인의 무한책임사원이 사망하였는데, 그 상속인이 회사에 대한 피상속인의 권리의무를 승계하여 사원이 될 수 있음을 정관에 정하지 않은 경우에, ‘합자회사의 사원의 결의에 의하여 사망한 무한책임사원의 권리의무를 피상속인이 승계할 수 있도록’ 상법에 신설하는 것이 좋을 것으로 본다. 4. 다음과 같은 이유 때문에, 상법 제278조 전단을 임의규정으로 봐야 될 것이다. 첫째, 합자회사의 내부관계에 관하여는 정관 또는 본법에 다른 규정이 없으면 조합에 관한 민법의 규정을 준용한다(상법 제195조, 제269조). 따라서 합자회사의 정관에 유한책임사원이 업무집행을 할 수 있다고 기재하면, 유한책임사원이 업무집행을 할 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 원고(상고인)의 경우와 같이, 1인 뿐인 무한책임사원의 업무집행권한이 상실되었을 수 있다. 따라서 이러한 경우에 상법 제278조 전단을 임의규정으로 해석해서, 정관의 정함에 의하여 또는 사원의 유효한 결의에 의하여 유한책임사원이 업무집행을 할 수 있게 하여야 될 것이다. 셋째, 상법 제278조 전단을 임의규정으로 봄으로써, 정관의 정함에 의하여 또는 사원의 유효한 결의에 의하여 유능하고 투명한 유한책임사원이 업무집행을 할 수 있게 하는 것이 가장 좋을 것이다. 넷째, 합자회사의 무한책임사원은 ‘정관에 다른 규정이 없는 때’에는 각자가 회사의 업무를 집행할 권리와 의무가 있다(상법 제273조). ‘정관에 다른 규정이 없는 때’가 어느 내용까지 포함할 수 있는가? ‘위 정관의 내용’에 (ⅰ) 모든 무한책임사원의 수인이 공동으로 업무를 집행할 수 있고(상법 제202조, 제269조), (ⅱ) 모든 무한책임사원 중 1인 또는 수인이 각자 업무를 집행할 수 있고(상법 제201조, 제269조), (ⅲ) 무한책임사원이 업무를 집행할 수 없지만, 유한책임사원이 업무를 집행할 수 있다는 것이 포함될 것이다. 그런데 상법 제278조 전단을 임의규정으로 해석할지라도, 위 상법 제278조 전단을 “유한책임사원은 합자회사의 업무집행을 하지 못한다. 다만, 정관 또는 사원의 유효한 결의에 의하여 유한책임사원이 합자회사의 업무집행을 할 수 있다.”로 개정하는 것이 유한책임사원의 업무집행을 법적으로 확실하게 할 수 있을 것이다. 5. 다음과 같은 점들을 볼 때, 합자회사의 유한책임사원이 대표행위를 할 수 있게 하여야 될 것이다. 즉, 상법 ...

有限責任會社制度에 관한 總體的 考察

서성호 한국기업법학회 2019 企業法硏究 Vol.33 No.4

The limited liability company system was initially introduced to Korean company law system by revised Commercial Code on April 14, 2011, and caused confusion from the introduction stage of the system due to ambiguity in legal characteristics of such company’s class. In other words, as limited liability company has the characteristics of a joint stock company but is structured like personengesellschaft, there were discrepancies in academic views among scholars in pursuit of study at the educational front whether to deem this entity as realgesellschaft or to adopt a hybrid concept of a company in the middle of personengesellschaft and realgesellschaft in explanation thereof. This was due to the fact that the system was adopted without sufficient discussion, in the rush not to get left behind in international trend in pursuit of altering company law system within the perception on the justification to diversify investment by expanding class of companies under the Commercial Code in order to boost investment. Looking back, at that time while internationally the movement was arising to seek activated investment by amending company law system, especially Japan discarded the limited liability company act enacted in 1938 to remove limited liability company system itself but adopted the concept of membership company in Section 3 of the company law. By this concept, Japan newly introduced the system named limited liability company system in addition to existing unlimited partnership company and limited partnership company. This exercise direct influence in Korea’s adoption of limited liability company system, working as the reason for Korea to rush such legislation. Adopting a new system may cause confusion and damage to existing system thereby. Hence, not only the academics but also various societies including the business groups shall be duly engaged in sufficient discussion in pursuit of such system. However, in Korea at that time, adoption of such system was so rushed that it is not possible to find out whether such discussion actually took place. And the contents of such adoption looks like involving considerable problems. If all of these had been focused on the policy purpose to improve investment environment and ultimately to contribute to job creation and activating startups, then this legislation can only be pointed out as the representative case of extremely short-sighted legislation policy striving on showing visible effect. Nevertheless, adoption and enforcement of the limited liability company system has already passed 5 years and approaching a decade. However, researches not only on the efficacy but also operational status thereof are very scarce. Accordingly, starting from the review on the series of process of adoption the system and legal system phenomenon, this study materialize the problems of this system by basic analysis on the practicality and utilization based on statistical information, and seeks activation measures for the system and the resolution of such problems while obtaining the general view on Japan’s limited liability company system that is assessed as similar system introduced. Ultimately, this study asserts the necessity of the legal system integrating limited liability company system and existing limited company system as the measures to boost the system, and wraps up the discussion by proposing legislation on such integration. 2011년 4월 14일 상법개정을 통해 우리회사법제에 처음으로 도입된 유한책임회사제도는 제도도입에서부터 회사의 종류에 관한 법적성격의 모호함으로 인해 혼선이 야기되었다. 즉, 주식회사의 특성을 가지면서도 인적회사의 조직구조를 갖추고 있음에 따라 강학상 이를 물적회사로 보고 설명해야 할 것인지 아니면 인적회사 또는 인적과 물적 중간적형태의 회사개념을 도입하여 설명해야 할 것인지 교육일선에서조차 학자들 간 견해차이가 있었다. 이는 투자의 활성화를 꾀하기 위하여 기존 상법상 회사의 종류를 확대함으로써 투자의 다변화를 모색해야한다는 당위성과 회사법제의 변화를 모색하는 국제기류에 뒤쳐져서는 안 된다는 조급함에 떠밀려 충분한 논의를 거치지 못하고 제도도입이 이루어졌기 때문이다. 새로운 제도를 도입하기 위해서는 그로 인해 기존제도에 혼선과 폐해가 야기 될 수 있는 것이므로 제도도입을 추진하는 과정에서부터 학계는 물론이고 경제계 등 각계의 충분한 논의가 있어야 함은 두말할 나위도 없다. 그러나 당시 동 제도도입에 있어서는 그러한 논의가 있었다는 것조차 알 수 없을 만큼 급하게 추진되었고, 그 내용 또한 적지 않은 문제점을 안고 있는 것으로 보인다. 이러한 모든 것이 투자여건을 개선하여 결국은 일자리가 창출, 창업의 활성화에 기여하고자 하는 정책적 목적에 맞추어진 것이라면, 이는 가시적인 효과만을 나타내는데 급급한 극히 근시적인 입법정책의 대표적인 사례에 해당되는 것으로 지적될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 유한책임회사제도가 도입되어 시행하게 된지도 벌써 5년이 훨씬 지나 10년에 가까워지고 있다. 그러나 그 효과성은 물론이고 운영실태 등에 관한 연구는 찾아보기 어려운 실정이다. 따라서 이하 본 연구에서는 먼저 제도도입의 일련의 과정과 법제현상에 대해서 살펴보는 것으로부터 시작하여 동 제도의 실용성 및 활용도에 관해 조사된 통계자료를 근거로 기초분석하여 문제점을 구체화해 나가는 한편, 이와 유사한 제도로 도입되었다고 평가되는 일본의 합동회사제도를 개관하면서 제도의 활성화방안과 문제점의 해결방안을 모색하였다. 결국 본 연구에서는 동 제도의 활성화 방안으로 유한책임회사제도와 유한회사제도의 통합법제 마련의 필요성을 주장하고 이를 입법제안 한다.

유한책임회사 규정의 합리적 해석 및 입법적 개선

박세화 동아대학교 법학연구소 2024 東亞法學 Vol.- No.102

Diversification of the company's form is a task that is difficult to give an answer both now and in the future. This is because the stability and predictability of the company's internal and external legal relations, as well as the protection of various stakeholders, must be considered, and it is a challenge that must conform to the changing social and economic environment. The introduction of a limited liability company through the revision of the Commercial Act in 2011 is meaningful in challenging one of the challenges of corporate law. A limited liability company is a hybrid company type that combines the material company element of limited liability of employees with an internal association of the nature of a human company based on the US LLC (Limited Liability Company). With the goal of ensuring that the human ability of experts leads to start-ups through smooth financing, it can be evaluated as a flexible and flexible company that has substantially eliminated the rigidity of the previous company form. However, even though more than a decade has passed since the limited liability company was introduced, the founders' choices have fallen short of expectations at the time of launch. At this point, we should pay attention to the intentions and goals of legislators who have decided to combine the main elements of heterogeneous human and material, and consider measures to improve and revitalize the completion of the limited liability company system. It is necessary to develop interpretation principles and expedite legal reform by listening to the practical evaluation of the business community while examining the advantages of hybrid organizations more elaborately. It is necessary to continuously examine the operational and legal maintenance conditions of US LLC and Japanese joint companies, and in-depth consideration of changes in our corporate culture to come up with measures to improve the limited liability company system that is effective in reality. To this end, this article first examines the utilization status of limited liability companies and summarizes the problems of some of the current regulations of limited liability companies that had a common problem consciousness. The principles of reasonable interpretation of the regulations of several limited liability companies selected as targets for analysis were found, and the matters requiring legal improvement among the laws and regulations of limited liability companies were examined overall.

유한회사 제도의 남용에 관한 검토

문준우 한국상사법학회 2016 商事法硏究 Vol.35 No.2

Any corporation that meets the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, in terms of the total amount of assets, the amount of liabilities, the number of employees, etc. at the end of the immediately preceding business year, shall receive an accounting audit by an external auditor who is independent of the company after preparing financial statements(including consolidated financial statements for a company which prepares consolidated financial statements)(ACT ON EXTERNAL AUDIT OF STOCK COMPANIES Article 2). But regardless of amount of asset, limited company need not take external audit. This lead to organizational change of corporation to limited company. Most of the corporation are a foreign-affiliated corporation. In the case of Germany·UK·Singapore, limited company which is not small company must be taken by the external audit. If amount of asset of limited company is large, it must be taken by the external audit. The amount of one unit of investment shall be at least one hundred won and shall be equal(COMMERCIAL ACT Article 546). According to the COMMERCIAL ACT Article 546, abuses of limited company are increased. If crimes abusing limited company are increased, the minimum capital·the amount of one unit of investment will be able to raised. 대규모 해외자본이 우리나라에 현지법인을 설립하는 경우에 추가적으로 자금을 조달할 필요성이 거의 없고, 자산·부채·자본·수익·비용·이익 등 회사의 정보 등을 공개하기를 꺼려하며, 우리나라에서 상장할 계획이 없고 또한 의사결정의 효율성을 높일 수 있고, 외부감사 대상이 아니므로 외부감사 비용을 부담하지 않아도 되는 유한회사를 선호·고집하고 있다. 독일·영국·싱가폴은 회사의 종류가 아닌 회사의 자산규모와 종업원수 등의 기준에 의하여 외부감사를 받게 할지 내부감사만 받게 할지를 정하고 있다. 유한회사의 투자자·채권자·과세당국·정부·노동조합 등은 유한회사가 외부감사를 받기를 선호할 것이고, 또 이렇게 되어야 이들이 입을 수도 있는 피해를 줄일 수 있을 것이다. 특히, 자산규모가 큰 유한회사의 경우는 이해관계자가 많으므로 더더욱 외부감사를 받게 하는 것이 좋을 것이다. 유한회사 설립과 운영이 예전보다 훨씬 쉬워지면서 범죄자가 유한회사를 범죄의 도구로 더 사용하고 있다. 유한회사를 악용한 범죄가 증가되는 현상을 방치하는 것은 바람직하지는 않을 것으로 사료된다. 생각건대 과거처럼 유한회사를 쉽게 설립·운영하지 못하게 하는 것(최저 자본 부활·출좌1좌 금액 인상 등)이 유한회사를 악용한 범죄를 줄이는 방법들이 될 수 있을 것으로 본다. 유한회사에는 장점들도 있지만, 유한회사 제도를 남용하는 사례가 점점 증가하고 있다. 따라서 유한회사라는 제도의 장점을 유지하면서, 유한회사 제도의 남용을 최소화하는 방향으로 관련 법이 정비되어야 할 것이다.

태국 회사법의 우리 회사법에의 시사점에 관한 소고

김원규 한남대학교 사회과학연구소 2008 사회과학연구 Vol.17 No.-

세계화시대에 선진 제 외국의 상사법에 대한 연구는 중요하다. 그러나 그 외 중견 국가의 법체계를 검토하는 것도 법의 본연의 역할 면에서 본다면 통제나 보호 기능에서 우리에게 시사하는 점이 있다는 점에서 나름의 의미가 있다고 본다. 특히 중소 회사에 속하는 비공개주식회사에 관하여 중점적으로 검토해 봄으로써 현재 우리 경제가 처해 있는 갖가지 현안을 해결하는데 그 실마리가 되었으면 하는 마음이다. 즉 회사 중 90% 이상이 주식회사이며 이중에서도 90% 이상이 중소 회사인 우리나라와 태국의 경제사정은 거의 동일한 입장에 있다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 그런데도 불구하고 우리 상법은 그 규모 및 경영상태의 여하에 불구하고 모든 주식회사에 거의 천편일률적인 법률을 적용하고 있는데 비하여 태국의 민상법은 이를 구분하고 있다는 점은 우리에게 시사하는 바가 대단히 크다고 생각한다. 예를 들면 앞에서 본 바와 같이 우리 상법상 유한회사의 수는 전체 회사 기업에서 차지하는 비중이 아주 미미한 반면 주식회사 중에서 비상장 또는 코스닥비상장 법인의 수는 전체 회사기업의 대부분을 차지한다. 이는 경제 전체적으로 볼 때 구조적 불균형을 초래하는 원인이 될 뿐만 아니라 이들 다수의 회사 기업이 가지고 있는 문제점을 확대 재생산하는 근거가 되기도 한다. 이에 비하여 태국 민상법상의 비공개회사는 주식회사이면서도 우리 상법상의 유한회사와 유사하다보니 유한회사와 주식회사의 장점을 모두 지니고 있기 때문에 이러한 장점은 기업인에게는 다른 회사와 비교되는 매력으로 작용할 뿐만 아니라 국가 경제적으로는 다수의 중소규모의 회사 기업이 안고 있는 근본적인 문제점을 최소화할 수 있는 대응책으로서 작용할 수 있다고 본다. 물론 이에 관하여 우리나라의 코스닥상장회사나 상장회사는 상법 외에 증권거래법 등 특별법의 적용을 동시에 받고 있다. 그러나 문제는 여기에 있는 것이 아니라 비상장회사와 코스닥비상장회사에게도 상법상의 주식회사에 관한 규정을 그대로 적용하고 있다는데 문제가 있다고 본다. 이에 관하여 태국 민상법은 중소 주식회사에 관하여 주식회사형태를 인정하면서도 유한회사에 유사한 규정을 적용함으로써 중소규모의 회사의 안정적 설립 및 운영을 유도하고 있다. 우리 경제에서 현실적으로 문제가 되고 있는 경우를 보면 일부 대기업집단의 문제행동이 보고되는 경우도 있지만, 사실 중소규모의 회사집단이 안고 있는 문제점은 대기업 집단의 그것에 가려져서 자주 드러나 보이지 않아서 그렇지, 그 수의 다양성과 문제의 심각성이라는 측면에서는 더 크다고 할 수 있다. 입법론적으로는 주식회사 중 90% 이상을 차지하고 있는 중소 회사인 비상장회사와 코스닥비상장법인에게는 상법상의 주식회사에 관한 규정을 그대로 적용하기 보다는 태국 민상법의 경우와 같이 중소 주식회사에 관하여 주식회사형태를 인정하면서도 유한회사에 유사한 규정을 적용함으로써 중소규모의 회사의 안정적 설립과 그 운영을 유도하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. The laws relating private limited company or closely held company and other business law in Thailand is covered under the "Thai Civil and Commercial Code". Three types of company are recognized in Thailand. They are public limited company, private limited company and partnership. In order to set up a private limited company in Thailand, the following procedures may be followed: The process of incorporating a company starts with the reservation of name for the business concern at the Business Development Office in the Ministry of commerce following the guidelines of the Office. A memorandum of association to be filed with the Business Development Office must containing the name of the company, business objectives, the province where the company will be located, the capital to be registered, the names of the promoters. The promoter of a private limited company need at least seven members. Public limited company and private limited company must issue always share certificate. A private limited company can not sell stocks publicly. Stockholder must underwrite all stocks are issued. But, stockholder who underwrite stocks may not pay total amount before do registration of incorporation. Public limited company and private limited company can not acquire treasury stock. Determination of shareholders' meeting is held by show of hand in principle. The public limited company and private limited company must put auditing phosphorus and auditing person must have certified public accountant's qualification as external audit. If the public limited company and private limited company issues new stocks, must flow special determination of shareholders' meeting always. Although there are no minimum capital requirements, the amount of the capital should be respectable enough and adequate as per the object of the company. Audited financial statements of juristic entities, that is, a limited company, a registered partnership, a branch of a foreign corporation must be certified by an authorized auditor and submitted to the Revenue Department and to the Commercial Registrar for each accounting year. A board of directors consist of not less than five members. They are responsible for registering the transformation and submitting required documents minutes of shareholders' meetings and the approved memorandum and articles of association of the company.

상법상 유한책임회사제도의 도입과 전망

박영준(Young-Joon Park) 한국기업법학회 2015 企業法硏究 Vol.29 No.4

주식회사처럼 투자자들이 유한책임을 부담하면서 소규모 사업을 행할 수 있도록 하기 위해 독일의 법학자들은 19세기말 유한회사(GmbH)제도를 고안해 입법하였다. 유한회사 제도의 실무상 장점에 주목하여 이 제도는 미국 회사법제에 유한책임회사(Limited Liability Company: LLC)라는 명칭으로 그 내용이 변형되어 1977년에 도입되었고, 20세기말부터 오늘까지 미국의 창업열풍에 크게 기여했다고 평가되고 있다. 미국의 LLC제도는 합동회사라는 명칭으로 2005년 일본 회사법에 도입되었고, 우리나라에도 2011년 개정 상법에 유한책임회사라는 명칭으로 도입되었다. 다만 우리나라에서는 이 제도의 원형인 독일 유한회사(GmbH)제도에 해당하는 유한회사 제도가 그대로 존재하기 때문에 양 회사제도의 독자성 및 차별성에 관한 의문이 많이 제기되고 있다. 본고에서는 먼저 상법상 유한책임회사 제도에 강한 영향을 끼친 독일 유한회사(GmbH), 미국 LLC, 일본 합동회사 제도의 구체적인 내용에 대하여 비교법적으로 자세하게 알아본 후 현행 우리 유한책임회사 제도가 가지고 있는 현실적인 문제점과 이에 대한 구체적인 개선방안을 제시하고 있다. In the late 19th century, German jurist designed “Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung”(GmbH: Company with limited liability) which is a company system for small business with owner’s limited liability for the company’s debts. This type of company has become the most common company form in Germany. In 1977, Wyoming state of USA enacted the Limited Liability Company Act, based on the same social needs of Germany. A Limited Liability Company(LLC) is a business structure that combines the self management of a partnership with the limited liability of a corporation. At the end of the 20th century, it has become the most popular business entity in USA. In 2005, Japan passed legislation creating a Limited Liability Company(“godo kaisha”), a close variant of the American LLC. In 2011, a Limited Liability Company based on the American LLC were introduced as a new company system in the Korean Commercial Code. New Limited Liability Company is very similar with the existing Limited Company based on the German GmbH, so there is arguments for differences of both company systems. In this paper, the author examines the Korean Limited Liability Company compare with German GmbH, American LLC(on Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act[RULLCA]) and Japanese LLC(“godo kaisha”). And the author suggests some revision of the Korean Commercial Code and the Korean Corporate Income Tax Act, especially to adopt pass-through taxation (partnership tax treatment) to enhance the utilization of the Limited Liability Company.

日本의 (新)會社法上 持分會社制度에 관한 硏究

徐聖浩(Seong-Ho Seo) 한국기업법학회 2009 企業法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

In this paper, the researcher briefly reviewed major contents of the new corporation law and also the significance of separate enactment of the corporation law by means of revision of the Commercial Code of Japan. Next, having arranged the contents of the revised corporation system in new corporation law, simultaneously, the researcher substantiated the relationships between the organization of the company and employees with a focus on the code concerned about the Limited Liability Company newly introduced, which was included in the equity-sharing partnership system. Although the new corporation law of Japan that enacted separate from the Commercial Code comprises a vast amount of provisions reaching total number of articles; 979, when reviewing it in light of overall structure, it is not only systematic, but also reveals distinctive features, such as abolition of the legal regime of the limited company that lacked effectiveness, and replacement thereof along with introduction of the limited liability company system. More than anything else, in this revised corporation law, the kinds of corporations were divided into two-tier system in large : the joint stock company and the equity-sharing partnership, and again, each company category was divided and prescribed as into three types of companies, so then it brings about effects of improving practicability for application of law, etc. It is believed that such points related to the revision of the Commercial Code of Japan in 2005 would carry the most significant meaning in connection with the implications of the improvements in jurisprudence. Specifically, as to the company types being recognized in our existing laws and regulation, not much different from the past Japanese legislation, on theoretical aspects, there are General Partnership and Limited Partnership, which are human resources-oriented companies, and, as for material resources-oriented company, there are Joint Stock Company and the Limited Company. However, the joint stock company is in inverse proportion to the further developments in respect to quantity, so then putting the problems in the application of the law aside, it is being considered appropriate and effective from the perspective of differentiating legislation. Meanwhile, the reality is that characteristics of the system concerned with the limited (or private) company have not been utilized substantially in fullest measure, different from Germany, the home of this company system, on the premise that there are still various reasons involved. These results have been compiled in figures. Furthermore, the limited company has been considered material-oriented company being misinterpreted to a certain extent, like a joint stock company being organized only with limited partners. However, since the limited company contains human-oriented elements in a realistic term, it is true that there are the limits to explaining this point. And, therefore, there is an increasing voice for worrying abuse of juridical personality in partial in regard to the Limited Liability Company of Japan that introduced as an alternative of the Limited Company. In the meantime, worrying abuse of juridical personality will not be restricted only to the Limited Liability Company, thus it is considered that there is a necessity to discuss this issue in depth for the revision of our legislation further. Regarding the issue as to whether we have to make the chapter that covers a variety issues related to the company separate or become independent from the Commercial Code like the case of Japan, there is still a problem, such as "Special Law Epidemic." And so, it would be desirable for us to take a more discreet and prudent position in this regard.

株主의 有限責任과 債權者保護에 관한 考察

徐聖浩(Seong-Ho Seo),金晋煥(Jin-Hwan Kim) 한국기업법학회 2010 企業法硏究 Vol.24 No.3

Limited liability of shareholder is one of basic features that the corporation company system (including the Limited Company). In case of the individual private company to which the limited liability system is not applicable (including the Unlimited Partnership and the General Partners of Joint Stock Company), there are risks to embrace, if the business fails, the burden to be subjected to discharge of obligation for not only the capital that the owner has invested as the investor but also the personal wealth. On the contrary, for the Corporation Company System, the participants with capital investment will risk only limited to own investment assets (paid-in-capital of own) without any other accountability beyond it. Such limited liability of shareholder of the corporation company system has merits to establish the share market where a number of investors will participate as it can guarantee the homogeneity of share, create the environment to achieve wide range investment by reducing the risk burden for those investors through paid in capital investment. Such merits playas the one of biggest causes for many profitable entities of today prefer to take the form of corporation company. However, the fact that shareholders do not embrace the risks for business failure while they own the controlling authority over management ultimately acts as critical issue that creates potential for conflicts of interests in their relationship with the creditors. This is more prominent for the entities whose ownership and management is not separated in substantial. Therefore, in such case, the foundation is provided for the creditors to claim the doctrine of the disregard of a corporate entity on the Positive Law, and additionally, for the company with the conditions that the creditors are unable to claim such doctrine, the regulations set by the Commercial Act. Article 401-2 guaranteed by the current commercial laws of Korea, provides legal constitution for the responsibility of the conductor of affairs and the ground to pursue the question of directors" responsibility. Nonetheless, the various types of the company related creditors, it is not possible for all creditors to question on the obligation of shareholders by utilizing such legal doctrine and enacted laws in order to secure the credits officially and evenly. Even if any creditor maybe able to pursue the question of directors" responsibility, the application of doctrine is extremely limited in narrow range within the power of the Positive Law. Also in case of applying the enacted law, the difficulty of providing proofs is being weighed so that such laws demerits for the creditors in actuality. Aforementioned does not necessarily mean that the principle of Limited liability of shareholder should be denied thoughtlessly to protect the creditors, but it can prevent any unusual operation of the General Meeting of Shareholders which is the highest decision making body of the company, resulting in securing the soundness of company management and furthermore, it is considered that it would be necessary to gradually reduce the room for disputing by making the limited liability of shareholder (Dominant shareholder) clear from different angle in order to protect the creditors. Therefore, this study was intended to define the relationship of the company with the shareholder/the General Meeting of Shareholders as priority, then to newly deploy the theory of shareholder's liability corresponding to the contemporary era by specifying the shareholder types based on their roles and interest levels in the company management.