φ-features and Discourse-agreement features

( Sungran Koh ) 대한영어영문학회 2013 영어영문학연구 Vol.39 No.2

Agreement is one of the most familiar and well-studied parts of grammar. Many languages have distinct patterns depending on a range of language families. In general, some languages have been identified as an agreement-based language, whereas others are discourse-configurational languages. Miyagawa (2005) has categorized languages as agreement or focus prominent, depending on the type of grammatical features (discourse or agreement) they allow to inherit from C to T. Some languages have been identified as agreement-based languages, highlighting agreement markings such as in English. On the other hand, other languages are discourse-configurational languages, emphasizing on discourse functions such as in Japanese. Miyagawa (2010) argues that in agreement languages, the φ-probe triggers movement at T, whereas in discourse-configurational languages, topic/focus triggers movement at T. The φ-feature agreement and topic/focus are computationally equivalent in narrow syntax. Miyagawa (2010) claims that Korean is considered as a discourse-configurational language. However, in this paper, I claim that there is a third category which has both agreement and discourse features and that Korean is an example of this type of language. To support this, I analyze Korean as a discourse-prominent language by using Miyagawa's (2010) proposal. The analyses are based on the following: Subject agreement, Inheritance of topic/focus features from C to T, and Pro-drop. At the same time, I suggest that Korean is also an agreement-prominent language through imperatives and promissives, honorification, and the blocking effect. My analyses justify my theory of combination languages which are based on both agreement features and discourse features. (UC Santa Barbara)

연예인 전속계약에 관한 연구 - 미국법을 중심으로 -

장보은 한국민사법학회 2018 民事法學 Vol.84 No.-

Entertainers are the most important subjects in the entertainment industry. For the development of this industry, it is a crucial element protecting their rights as well as making good use of them. As the industry becomes more sophisticated, divided, and specialized, entertainers are executing exclusive agreements with agency or management companies that support their entertainment activities, and at the same time more and more disputes are being raised over these agreements. However, it is quite complicated to understand these kinds of agreements. First, they are not typical contracts stipulated in the Civil Act, but special types of contracts that reflect complex industrial characteristics, dynamics of parties, consumer preference, and economic uncertainty, etc. In addition, entertainment agency or management companies provide a variety of services such as procuring employment and other opportunities for entertainers, guiding and processing entertainers’ affairs, and educating and training entertainers. Finally, most of the contracts are executed using the standard form contract with paying little attention to the specific aspects of the business relations. In order to find out the legal liabilities and solve the particular problems associated with these agreements, it is necessary to examine the purpose of individual contracts. The more complex the contract, the more meaningful the attempt to simplify it. To this point, it will be helpful to review the exclusive agreements with entertainers in the United States, such as agent agreements, management agreements, and recording agreements. Under the framework of the entertainment law, each of these agreements is strictly distinguished and forms a unique jurisprudence in terms of contents and regulatory methods. Of course, our entertainment industry has its own culture and there is a difference in the regulatory environment, so we could not apply the arguments in the United States as they are. However, it is certain that they offer new insights into how to understand these contracts. 엔터테인먼트 산업에서 연예인은 무엇보다 중요한 주체이다. 이들을 잘 활용하고 동시에 그 권리를 보호하는 것은 산업의 발전을 위하여 필수적인 요소이다. 엔터테인먼트 산업이 고도화, 분업화, 전문화되면서 연예인들은 자신들의 연예활동을 지원하는 기획사와의 전속계약을 체결하는 예가 많아졌고, 이러한 연예인 전속계약을 둘러싼 분쟁도 늘어나고 있다. 이러한 계약은 기존에 민법이 예정하였던 전형계약이 아니고, 복잡하게 전개되는 산업의 특성, 당사자들의 역학 관계, 소비자의 선호도, 경제적 불확실성 등을 반영한 특수한 형태의 계약이다. 이러한 계약을 법률적으로 어떻게 이해하여야 하는지에 대하여는 많은 연구가 필요하다. 특히 우리나라의 전속계약은 연예기획사가 출연기회의 알선, 연예인의 사무처리는 물론 연예인 육성 등의 다양한 서비스를 복합적으로 제공할 것을 전제하는 경우가 많고, 대부분 사안마다의 특수성을 고려하지 않은 채 정형화된 약관의 형태로 계약이 체결되기 때문에 더욱 난해한 면이 있다. 이러한 연예인 전속계약을 이해하기 위해서는 개별 계약이 어떠한 목적으로 체결된 것인지를 구체적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 계약이 복잡할수록 이를 단순화하려는 시도는 의미가 있다. 여기에는 분업화된 미국의 연예인 전속계약에 관한 검토가 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다. 에이전트 계약, 매니지먼트 계약, 레코딩 계약 등은 미국의 대표적인 연예인 전속계약의 유형으로, 엔터테인먼트법이라는 테두리 하에서 이들 계약이 각각 엄격하게 구별되며 그 내용과 규제 방식의 면에서 독특한 법리를 형성하고 있다. 물론 우리의 연예인 전속계약은 미국과는 다른 토양에서 생겨난 것으로 그 규제 환경에도 차이가 있으므로 미국의 논의를 그대로 적용할 수는 없을 것이지만, 각 계약의 법리들이 민법의 전형계약을 출발점으로 삼는 것과는 다른 또 하나의 시각을 제공하여 줄 수 있음은 분명하다.

러시아어의 주어성 연구: 주어-동사 일치의 문제

김형섭 중앙대학교 외국학연구소 2014 외국학연구 Vol.- No.28

The main goal of this paper is to investigate subjecthood in Russian, focusing on NOM-case marked subject of a finite clause, DAT-case marked subject of impersonal constructions and infinitival sentences, Numeral Phrases, which exhibit a variety of morphosyntactic idiosyncrasies by adopting the concept of DP or QP where D or Q is the head of the functional projection, which serves as a head of a phrase. The approach of DP/QP to Russian Numeral phrases benefits better accounts for Subject-Predicate Agreement. The definiteness marked by DP is realized by word order in Russian. Theme-Rheme structure represents definitenss in article-less Russian. Agreement trigger/controller is directly related to agreement target, which matches [case; number; gender] features by syntactic mechanism AGREE. Subject in the nominative brings about subject-predicate agreement, while subject in the dative causes default agreement. From a syntactic perspective, subjects both in the nominative and in the dative represent the same syntactic properties regardless of case: i) use of reflexive pronouns and reflexive adjectives, ii) PRO transformational feature, iii) чтобы+infinitive PRO control, iv) impossibility of чтобы pro (v) Control, v) PRO control of gerund, etc. these syntactic properties apprear in both structures of personal and impersonal sentences. With regard to Subject-Predicate Agreement, Russian is one of natural languages where subject-predicate agreement occurs when there is a subject in the nominative. As for impersonal sentences or infinitival sentences, there should be a default agreement, which occurs due to defective T or incomplete set of nominal features to be matched between agreement trigger and agreement target under AGREE. Subject-Predicate Agreement consists of two kinds: Formal agreement vs. Semantic Agreement. Formal agreement can be divided into grammatical ageement and default agreement, which is used in the form of 3rd person singular. To summarize the core of the paper, subjects in NOM or DAT behave in the same. The case of subject is very sensitive to Russian, one of NOM-ACC languages, but NOM case is not necessary requirement to Ergative-Absolutive language. For this reason, NOM case is an essential requirement to the subjecthood in Russian.

Thirty Years of the Moon Agreement : its retrospect and prospect

KIM Han-Taek(김한택) 대한국제법학회 2010 國際法學會論叢 Vol.55 No.1

국제법상 달에 대한 관심은 1979년에 제정된 ‘달협정’(Moon Treaty; 원래명칭은 “달과 다른 천체에 관한 국가활동을 규제하는 협정”, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies)의 제정에서 시작되었는데 이는 5개의 우주관련조약 중에서 중요한 부분을 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 제정된 지 30년이 되어 가는데 우주개발국가들에게 외면당해 왔다. 2009년 12월이 마침 달협정 제정의 30년이 되는 해이므로 이 협정의 국제법적 의미를 분석하고 그것을 전망해 보는 데에 그 의미가 있을 것이다. 현재 달협정의 비준국은 호주, 오스트리아, 벨기에, 칠레, 카자흐스탄, 레바논, 멕시코, 모로코, 네덜란드, 파키스탄, 페루, 필리핀, 우루과이 등 13개국 정도이며, 프랑스, 과테말라, 인도, 루마니아가 서명국인데 우주개발국 중 프랑스만이 유일하게 서명국이고, 가입국 대부분이 비우주개발국이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 미국과 러시아, 영국을 비롯한 선진우주개발국들은 가입하지 않았고, 한국, 중국, 일본도 아직 가입하지 않고 있다. 이 연구에서는 우선 달협정의 주요내용과 그 의미를 설명하였고 특히 1967년 우주조약(Space Treaty)과의 관계를 분석한 후 달협정에 명시된 ‘인류공동유산’(Common Heritage of Mankind)개념이 국제법상 어떠한 의미를 가지는가를 살펴보았다. 아울러 달협정의 국제법적 의미와 전망에 관하여 그리고 한국이 현재 달협정에 가입하고 있지 않은데, 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유리한가 하는 문제도 다루었다. 달협정의 핵심은 인류공동유산개념인데 이와 관련된 조항은 제11조이다. 우선 제11조 1항에서 달과 그것의 천연자원은 ‘인류공동의 유산’이라고 명시하고 있고, 제11조 2항은 1967년 우주조약 제2조와 동일하게 달은 주권의 주장, 사용이나 점령, 기타 어떠한 수단에 의해서도 국가전유의 대상이 될 수 없다는 ‘비전유원칙’(principle of non-appropriation)을 재확인하고 있다. 또한 제11조 3항에서 달의 표면 또는 그 지하, 달의 어느 부분이나 달에 위치한 천연자원은 어느 국가, 정부 간 또는 비정부간 국제기구, 국가기관, 비정부간 기관 또는 어떠한 자연인의 재산이 될 수 없으며 달의 표면이나 그 지하에 사람, 우주차량, 장비, 시설물, 기지 및 군사시설은 달의 표면이나 지하를 연결한 구조물과 함께 달의 표면이나 지하 또는 어느 지역에 대한 소유권을 창설하지 않는다고 하고, 이는 제11조 5항에 언급된 ‘국제제도’(international regime)를 손상하지 않는다고 규정하고 있다. ‘달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질’(exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon is about to become feasible)시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 제11조 5항의 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는가? 그러나 달협정의 제정과정을 살펴보면 국제제도의 수립 전에 달과 다른 천체의 천연자원에 대한 개발유예는 예정되지 않았다고 해석해야 된다. 그러나 이것은 그와 같은 개발에 어떠한 제한이나 한계가 없음을 의미하는 것은 아니고 달과 다른 천체는 인류공동유산영역이므로 모든 개발가는 그들이 인류공동유산인 천연자원을 개발하고 있음을 명심할 것이 요구된다. 필자는 작년에 한국외교통상부에「달 협정의 내용 및 우리나라의 비준가능성 검토」라는 보고서를 통하여 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유익하다고 밝힌 바 있는데 그 이유는 달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질 시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니므로 국가들로서는 달협정에 가입하고 자원개발을 추구하는 방법이 좋을 것 같다는 의견이다. 오히려 달협정 제11조 7항에서 동 자원으로부터 파생하는 이익을 모든 당사국에게 공평하게 분배하되 달의 개발에 직접 또는 간접적으로 공헌한 국가의 노력은 물론 개발도상국의 이익과 필요에 대한 특별한 고려가 있어야 한다는 규정을 보면 우선 달협정 가입을 적극적으로 고려하고 달개발에 착수하는 방법이 국익에 도움이 될 것으로 생각한다. The United Nations General Assembly approved the text of an international agreement to govern the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies, and opened the agreement for signature and ratification on 18 December 1979. The title of that agreement is "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (so-called Moon Agreement or Moon Treaty)". On that date, the agreement was signed by 6 nations -Chile, France, Romania, the Philippines, Austria and Morocco - at the United Nations Headquarter in New York. The year 2009 marks the 30th Anniversary of the conclusion of the 1979 Moon Agreement. Although the Moon Agreement is one of the 5 major space-related treaties, it has been accepted only by 13 states - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Uruguay - which are non-space powers, and so could not have had much influence on the field of space law. France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed, but have not ratified it. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China, nor United Kingdom signed the treaty. Indeed, international acceptance of the Moon Agreement has been so weak that in the opinion of most jurists, the norms enshrined in that treaty failed to attain the force of customary international law. This article analyses the relationship between the 1979 Moon Agreement and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and discusses the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM)" stipulated in the Moon Agreement, together with the prospect and future of the Moon Agreement. Article 11(1) of the Moon Agreement stipulates that "[t]he Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in particular in paragraph 5 of this article." According to Professor Bin Cheng, the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Agreement created a whole new territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community, not something left to an initiative and discretion of individual States and their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention for the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Agreement, international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime, we could imagine moratorium upon the exploitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But, considering the drafting history of the Moon Agreement, there would not be any moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources, prior to the setting up of the international regime. So, each State Party could exploit the natural resources with bearing in mind that those resources are CHM. Because the Moon Agreement stipulated that the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the Moon shall be given special consideration, the possibility of acceptance of the Moon Agreement by states would be increased with the development of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon. In this respect, it would be better for Korea, which currently is not a party to the Moon Agreement, to be a member state thereto in the near future. In 2008, I proposed Korean Government to accept the Moon Agreement in “[t]he Report concerning the Contents of the Moon Agreement and Korean Government's Ratification” which was submitted to Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If Korea accept the Moon Agreement, it will encourage other Asian countries to accept that treaty.

Interaction between Morph-syntax and Semantics in English Agreement

김종복 한국언어정보학회 2003 언어와 정보 Vol.7 No.1

Most of the previous approaches to English agreement phenomena have relied upon only one component of the grammar (e.g., either syntax, or semantics, or pragmatics). This paper argues that interrelationships among different grammatical components play crucial roles in such phenomenon too (cf. Kathol 1999 and Hudson 1999). The paper proposes that, contrary to traditional wisdom, English determiner-noun agreement is morpho-syntactic whereas subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement are reflections of index agreement (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994). The present hybrid analysis of English agreement shows the importance of the interaction of different components of the grammar in accounting for English agreement phenomena. In particular, once we allow morphology to tightly interact with the system of syntax, semantics, or even pragmatics, we could provide a solution to some puzzling English agreement phenomena. This allows a more principled theory of English agreement.

선택적 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구

김경배,신군재 韓國仲裁學會 2005 중재연구 Vol.15 No.1

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arise between them. Arbitration agreement is an important factor to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement and it should be the object of examination before anything else to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement. Recently the Supreme Court seemed to make negative position about validity of selective arbitration agreement. However theoretically and scientifically selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Examine selective arbitration agreement throughly according to the autonomy of the parties rules, wide jurisdiction rules of interpretation, principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, and moses cone presumption rule of interpretation, selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Also analyze precedents in accordance with validity of selective from all angles which are voluntary agreement of the parties, agreement in writing, principle of private autonomy, comparative study of domestic and foreign precedents and mutual relation of arbitration and trial, selective arbitration agreement based on principle of private by the parties is considered a valid arbitration agreement. Courts should actively accept selective arbitration agreement as a valid arbitration agreement to make foreign companies prefer arbitration in Korea and in oder for arbitration to be widely used in disputes.

노동위원회에 의한 단체협약의 해석 또는 이행방법에 관한 견해의 제시 - 대상 재결: 중앙노동위원회 2020. 4. 13. 2020단협3 결정 -

이재용 ( Lee Jae-yong ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2020 法과 政策 Vol.26 No.2

Collective agreements are documents that have been agreed on as a result of collective bargaining between trade unions and employers or employers’ organizations, regarding working conditions and other issues related to industrial relations. Collective agreements require contractual agreement between the parties because the nature of the agreement is a contract, but sometimes the dispute between labor and management over interpretation etc. arises because the content is unclear or insufficient. In this case, it is necessary to clarify the objective and normative meaning of the agreement in accordance with the general principles of contract interpretation. Collective agreements are also the norms of autonomy between labor and management. Therefore, it is a principle that labor and management will decide in case of disagreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of collective agreements. However, if consultation between labor and management does not occur smoothly, a means to quickly resolve it is needed, and this is a system for presenting opinions by the labor relations commission (Article 34 of the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). This study reviewed cases of opinions presented by the labor relations commission regarding the interpretation and implementation of collective agreements. This study will mention it in detail in the review of target adjudication, but the labor relations commission considers the target of opinion presentation very limited. That is to say, it is a position that specific interpretation or opinions can be given only to the contents already agreed by the parties. It also does not differentiate between interpretation and implementation of collective agreements. In view of the nature of collective agreements, which are self-governing norms, the conclusion of target adjudication can be accepted in that it is the formation of new collective agreements or the creation of obligations to give opinions on how to interpret or implement content that the parties have not agreed to. However, it is regrettable that the target adjudication has not been exquisitely reviewed in determining whether or not to present a target for presenting opinions regarding the specificity of the civil service union law (such as negotiations), statutes, and non-compliance with procedural requirements set forth in agreements. In addition, it is thought that it is necessary to actively present opinions as the current law introduced the labor relations commission’s opinion presentation system in order to resolve the labor-management conflict. In this perspective, unlike the ‘interpretation of collective agreements’ that presupposes stipulations of regulations, the labor relations commission may have room to be more flexible in presenting opinions by considering the negotiation process and the intention of the parties to the agreement.

사법분야 투고논문 : 채무재승인약정

박재완 ( Jae Wan Park ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.32 No.4

채권자와 채권자가 도산절차에서 면책될 혹은 면책된 채무를 면책에도 불구하고 갚겠다는 내용의 약정을 채무재승인약정이라고 한다. 채무재승인약정은 개인도산절차의 중요한 정책적목표인 채무자의 경제적 갱생을 형해화할 위험성이 크기 때문에 그 유효 여부가 논란이 된다. 미국의 경우 연방도산법에는 애초에 아무런 실정법적 규제가 없었고, 법원의 판례는 채무재승인약정을 유효한 것으로 취급하였으나, 채권자들에 의한 남용이 사회문제화되어, 일정한 형식과 내용을 갖춘 채무재승인약정만을 유효한 것으로 하는 내용의 법개정이 이루어졌다. 일본의 경우 채무재승인약정에 대한 법규정은 없지만 유효 여부에 관한 학설상의 논의가 이루어졌고, 면책허가 이전에 이루어진 채무재승인약정과 면책허가 이후에 이루어진 채무재승인약정의 각효력을 부인한 2건의 하급심 판례가 있다. 우리나라의 경우 아직은 별다른 학문적 논의가 이루어지지 않고 있으나 2000년 중반 이후부터 현저히 늘어난 개인도산사건수를 생각하면 채무재 승인약정이 현실적으로 많이 행해지고 또 채권자에 의하여 남용되고 있을 가능성을 부인할 수없다. 하급심판례 중에는 일본의 판례와 동일한 취지의 판시를 한 것들이 있다. 미국이나 일본의 예를 참조하면 무담보채권에 대한 채무재승인약정을 무효로 하고, 담보부채권에 대한 채무재승인약정은 피담보채무 중 담보물 가액에 상당하는 부분만을 유효로 하는 방향이 옳다고 생각된다. 위와 같은 방향의 법개정이 이루어지는 것이 원론적으로는 바람직하지만, 실제 법개정을 추진하는 경우 미국의 입법 및 개정과정에서와 같이 채권자들이 강하게 저항할 가능성이 크다. 채무재승인약정에 대한 채권자들의 남용을 막아 채무자들의 경제적 갱생을 도모하기 위하여 채무재승인약정에 대한 학문적 사회적 관심과 논의가 필요하다. Reaffirmation agreements are agreements between debtors and creditors in which debtors promise to pay the debts that are going to be discharged or were already discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. Reaffirmation agreements, if unrestrained, pose a serious threat to the fresh start of individual debtors. In the United States, there were no clause regulating reaffirmation agreements in the Bankruptcy Actfrom the onset, and in most cases the court upheld the validity of reaffirmation agreements. But pervasive abuse of reaffirmation agreements by creditors drew attention of the Congress, subsections including 11 U.S.C. 524(c) was added to Bankruptcy Code to regulate the content and formality of reaffirmation Agreements. Japan does not have any statutes regarding reaffirmation agreements, but there were 2 case laws of lower level courts that negated the validity of reaffirmation agreements. One is related to reaffirmation agreements that were entered before the discharge, and the other is related to reaffirmation agreements that were entered after the discharge. In Korea, reaffirmation agreements has seldom been a topic of scholars or practitioners so far, but there were 2 lower level court case laws that are of the same conclusion with the above Japanese case laws. Taking the legislative history and academic and social debates of the United Sates and Japan, the right direction to regulate reaffirmation agreements is to deny the validity of reaffirmation agreements of unsecured debts and to recognize the validity of reaffirmation agreements of secured debts partially, that is to say, only up to the amount of value of the collateral.

화해계약에서 창설된 법률관계상의 의무에 대한 불이행의 효과 - 영미법상 executory accord와 substituted contract 법리의 시사점 - - 대법원 2018. 6. 28. 선고 2018다201702 판결 -

천병주,김제완 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.1

The Supreme Court Decision in case no. 2018Da201702 brings into focus the constitutive effects of settlement (or comprise) agreement and the enforceable legal remedies for noncompliance in the case of failure to fulfill the legal obligations established by the settlement agreement. In the subject supreme court decision making process, the court interprets the 'special agreement' as a 'condition precedent', which allows to deny the validity of the settlement agreement itself. The current results may reflect a technique used as a mean to rescue to the other party's rights in the case that legal obligations established by the settlement agreement are not fulfilled. While 'condition precedent' has the advantage of simplifying the legal relationship by the nullification of the legal relationship in settlement agreement, it leaves the processing of the implemented parts unsolved, and is not in alignment with respecting the nature of the reconciliatory system in performing end-to-end resolution of a dispute. Here, we propose an alternative approach in decision to this case, where the 'special agreement' is made to partially limit the constitutive effects of the settlement agreement. We argue that the current alterative of a partial limitation may allow relief for the other party while simultaneously confirm the validity of the 'special agreement'. Considering the limited ongoing discussion regarding enforceable legal remedies and subsequent constitutive effects in the case of noncompliance to legal obligations in settlement agreement, we hope that the current case discussed may lead to more active research on settlement agreement. Our current alternative proposal in decision making processes provide a practical approach to similar cases in the future, and contribute to further research on settlement agreement. 대상판결은 화해계약의 창설적 효력 및 화해계약에 의하여 창설된 법률관계상의 의무를 이행하지 않은 경우 상대방의 권리구제수단에 관하여 많은 점을 생각하게 하는 사례이다. 대상판결에서는 이 사건 합의서의 특약을 정지조건으로 해석하였는데, 화해계약에 의하여 창설된 법률관계상의 의무를 이행하지 않은 경우 상대방의 권리구제수단으로 화해계약의 효력 자체를 부인하는 기법으로 정지조건을 활용한 것으로 이해될 수 있다. 그러나 이와 같이 정지조건은 화해로 인한 법률관계를 무효화시키는 점에서 법률관계를 간명히 한다는 장점이 있는 반면, 기이행부분의 처리 문제가 남고 분쟁의 종국적 해결이라는 화해제도의 본질적 특성을 제대로 존중하지 않는 기법이다. 사견으로는 이와 같은 상황에서 상대방의 구제수단으로 화해계약의 창설적 효력을 부분적으로 제한하는 의미로 이 사건 특약을 둔 것으로 해석하는 한편, 이와 같은 특약이 유효함을 확인하였더라면 더 좋았을 것으로 생각한다. 화해계약상 합의사항을 당사자 일방이 이행하지 않는 경우 그 법적 효과 및 상대방의 구제수단은 어떠한지와 관련하여, 그동안 학계에서는 활발한 논의가 이루어지지 않았다. 이 판례를 계기로 하여 그간 매우 빈번히 활용되면서도 실무상으로나 학술적으로 깊이 있는 논의를 하지 못하였던 화해계약에 관하여 좀 더 활발한 연구가 이루어지기를 기대한다.

株主들간 契約의 內容과 效力에 관한 硏究 - 英·美를 중심으로 우리나라와 比較法的 觀點에서 -

진홍기 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.26 No.4

Recently Korean Companies have expanded their size and capacity by mergers and acquisitions as well as establishing the joint venture companies internally and externally. Henceforth, for a buyer to acquire the target company, a buyout fund should be made available. In regards to this issue, currently through the application of Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets to the legal market, this sort of buyout fund solemnly created for assisting acquisition of a company, which belongs to an area of Private Equity Fund system, can be established. This fund contributes towards the acquisition as a strategic investor. They invariably enter into shareholders’ agreement in order for them to allocate powers for their interests and for the minority party to take assurance that their rights be protected as investors. Shareholders’ agreement functions as a tool which modifies and varies the article of association or the bylaw, because the company law and the article of association may not cover all the terms and the conditions which the shareholders wish to provide and they need to make arrangement inter se to protect their close enterprise-relationship from the intervention of outsiders. Even though voting trusts, irrevocable proxies, and management agreement function as the vehicle to amend the articles of associations but are distinctly different from the shareholders’ agreement. Shareholders’ agreement takes a variety of forms and contents, such as rights and duties of participants, transfer of shares, the composition of the board, increase of the capital, the exercise of corporate power to borrow, and the right of a shareholder to be bought, which may differ according to the shareholders’ objective of controlling and cooperation between them. In this thesis, in light of a comparative study on Anglo-American law with Korean Law in regards to the forms and contents of the shareholders’ agreement, I managed to investigate the concept and the validity of the specific provision in the shareholders’ agreement, in other words, the various terms and conditions restricting on the capacity of the boards of directors and obliging not only the company to act in terms of capital, management, but also the shareholders’ right to vote for directors. The validity of the shareholders’ agreement between the shareholders and the company who is not a party to the agreement may be argued that it has no effect on the company due to privity of knowledge. However, the shareholders’ agreement not only binds them but also invites the contentious argument about the validity of specific provision. In general, shareholders’ agreements are not sustained by the courts when the contracts were inspired by fraud that a public policy requires that it be given no effect. When the agreements are concerned about the legal capacity of directors, because of a conflict with the principle that the corporate directors are obligated with fiduciary duties toward the corporation, the courts would be content to declare its invalidity. In addition, on the basis that the holders of the majority of the shares of stock in a corporation may control its management and any agreement purporting to. Furthermore, the agreements entered into with a view for modification or fettering the article of association in relation to transfer of shares, fiduciary duties of directors, or to create a sterilized boards of directors, are struck down by the courts. Commentator opines that in the company law there are the facilitative and the mandatory provisions, such as public offerings of securities. The dual character of the company law is undoubtedly highly debatable over the proper construction and application of the shareholders’ agreement toward a recommendable and acceptable resolution. The regulatory rules in the company law are the public policy such as investor protection, and reduction of uncertainty. Furthermore, it is needed for the c... Recently Korean Companies have expanded their size and capacity by mergers and acquisitions as well as establishing the joint venture companies internally and externally. Henceforth, for a buyer to acquire the target company, a buyout fund should be made available. In regards to this issue, currently through the application of Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets to the legal market, this sort of buyout fund solemnly created for assisting acquisition of a company, which belongs to an area of Private Equity Fund system, can be established. This fund contributes towards the acquisition as a strategic investor. They invariably enter into shareholders’ agreement in order for them to allocate powers for their interests and for the minority party to take assurance that their rights be protected as investors. Shareholders’ agreement functions as a tool which modifies and varies the article of association or the bylaw, because the company law and the article of association may not cover all the terms and the conditions which the shareholders wish to provide and they need to make arrangement inter se to protect their close enterprise-relationship from the intervention of outsiders. Even though voting trusts, irrevocable proxies, and management agreement function as the vehicle to amend the articles of associations but are distinctly different from the shareholders’ agreement. Shareholders’ agreement takes a variety of forms and contents, such as rights and duties of participants, transfer of shares, the composition of the board, increase of the capital, the exercise of corporate power to borrow, and the right of a shareholder to be bought, which may differ according to the shareholders’ objective of controlling and cooperation between them. In this thesis, in light of a comparative study on Anglo-American law with Korean Law in regards to the forms and contents of the shareholders’ agreement, I managed to investigate the concept and the validity of the specific provision in the shareholders’ agreement, in other words, the various terms and conditions restricting on the capacity of the boards of directors and obliging not only the company to act in terms of capital, management, but also the shareholders’ right to vote for directors. The validity of the shareholders’ agreement between the shareholders and the company who is not a party to the agreement may be argued that it has no effect on the company due to privity of knowledge. However, the shareholders’ agreement not only binds them but also invites the contentious argument about the validity of specific provision. In general, shareholders’ agreements are not sustained by the courts when the contracts were inspired by fraud that a public policy requires that it be given no effect. When the agreements are concerned about the legal capacity of directors, because of a conflict with the principle that the corporate directors are obligated with fiduciary duties toward the corporation, the courts would be content to declare its invalidity. In addition, on the basis that the holders of the majority of the shares of stock in a corporation may control its management and any agreement purporting to. Furthermore, the agreements entered into with a view for modification or fettering the article of association in relation to transfer of shares, fiduciary duties of directors, or to create a sterilized boards of directors, are struck down by the courts. Commentator opines that in the company law there are the facilitative and the mandatory provisions, such as public offerings of securities. The dual character of the company law is undoubtedly highly debatable over the proper construction and application of the shareholders’ agreement toward a recommendable and acceptable resolution. The regulatory rules in the company law are the public policy such as investor protection, and reduction of uncertainty. Furthermore, it is needed for the court to...