Reflection and Perfection on the Adjustment of the Investors' Rights and Interests in the Reorganization Procedure

夏思宇 한국채무자회생법학회 2022 회생법학 Vol.25 No.-

Based on the need to reconcile the interests conflicts of the reorganization participants, the purpose of protecting creditors who have obtained the residual control right in the reorganization procedure, and the necessity for the investors to be responsible for the company's business failure, it is legitimate to adjust investors' rights and interests in the reorganization procedure. However, due to the complexity of its own connotation, investors' rights and interests does not only reflect the articulation of accounting accounts in the accounting law, but also reveal the rich connotation of shareholders' rights in the company law, which brings multiple possibilities in terms of the specific contents and means of realization of the adjustment of investors' rights and interests. The adjustment of investors' rights and interests is a business arrangement that integrates the generation, change, elimination of legal relationship and complex accounting treatment, and is the key to the substantial success of reorganization. However, the Bankruptcy Law, as a "law for the protection of creditors", has few provisions on the adjustment of investors' rights and interests. Only paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Law stipulates that if the draft reorganization plan involves the adjustment of investors' rights and interests a group of investors should be set up to vote on the matter. In addition, there are no clear provisions on the pricing mechanism of investors' rights and interests, the application of the adjustment of investors' rights and interests, the grouping method of the investor group, voting rules and other matters. These legislative loopholes cannot provide scientific, unified, specific and standardized operational guidance for adjustment of investors' rights and interests in the reorganization procedure, which will directly lead to confusion and randomness in the practical operation, resulting in the failure to fully play the functions of the reorganization system. Therefore, it is necessary to further regulate the provisions on the adjustment of investors' rights and interests for the improvement of the reorganization procedure. This paper believes that the dynamic adaptation and mandatory disclosure of assets appraisal methods can, to some extent, overcome the uncertainty and arbitrariness of the pricing of investors' rights and interests, provide an objective and fair reference basis for the adjustment plan of investors' rights and interests and the draft reorganization plan, and make good preparation for prior adjustment. Clarification of the specific application and principles of the adjustment of investors' rights and interests can provide basic guidance and operational guidance for the reconciliation of the conflicts of interest of reorganization participants in the reorganization procedures and do a good job in the design of the in-process scheme. Finally, refining the voting mechanism of the investor group from three aspects: grouping of the investor group, distinction of voting matters and design of voting avoidance system can ensure that on the basis of giving full play to the vitality of the reorganization system, the investor autonomy can be maintained to the maximum extent, and the dual purpose and balance of interests of the protection of creditors and debtors can be achieved.

미국에서의 회사조직재편 비과세요건의 검토

이기욱(Lee Ki Wook) 한국국제조세협회 2008 조세학술논집 Vol.24 No.2

In the corporate tax context of Subchapter C, the term "reorganization" is a statutory term of art. Rather than provide a general definition, Congress attempted to provide precise definitions tor the term "reorganization" in §368(a)(1) wiht an exclusive list of seven specific types of transactions that will be considered "reorganization". Subparagraphs (A) through (G) of §368(a)(1) each provide a description of particular reorganization transaction. Although the §368(a)(1) reorganization definition contains seven distinct transactions, these distinct transactions fit loosely into three general categories. The first general category is the acquisitive reorganization. In an acquisitive reorganization, the purchasing or acquiring corporation acquires control over or combines with another corporation, usually referred to as the target corporation. In contrast to the acquisitive reorganization in which two or more corporations are combined, the second major category of reorganizations defined by §368(a)(1) is the divisive reorganization in which one corporation is divided into two or more corporate enterprises in a spin-off, split-off or some other form of division. most of these transactions are accomplished using §368(a)(1)(D). The most frequently cited policy reason for the tax-free reorganization rules is that the exchange represents a "mere change in form" of the shareholders' interest in the business enterprise. The participants to a reorganization arguably have not "cashed out" on their investment; rather they have substituted one investment in the business enterprise for a similar investment in the same or related business enterprise Simply fitting within one of the apparently precise definitions in §368(a)(1) will not be enough to classify a transaction as a tax-free reorganization. Perhaps more than in any other area of Subchapter C, the courts have added, and Treasury Department regulations confirm, additional requirements necessary to achieve "reorganization" status. Under general federal income tax principles, realized gains and losses must be recognized for tax purposes unless the Code provides an explicit nonrecognition rule. The basic rational for these rules is that a transaction that merely changes the form of a taxpayer's investment should not yet be considered a taxable event. The usual corollary to such nonrecognition rule is a substituted basis provision designed to assure that the gain or loss left unrecognized will be preserved for the future.

삼각조직재편에서의 이해관계자 보호

李姃垠(Jeong-Eun Lee) 한국기업법학회 2016 企業法硏究 Vol.30 No.2

본 연구는 조직재편 대가의 유연화에 따른 삼각조직재편제도의 도입에 따른 이해관계자의 보호 문제를 고찰하였다. 2011년 개정상법으로 삼각조직재편제도 중 삼각합병제도가 먼저 도입된 이후, 2015년 개정에서는 삼각분할합병, 삼각주식교환 제도까지 인정되었다. 그러나 현행 상법상 삼각조직재편제도는 조직재편의 절차와 관련하여 불명확한 부분이 있을 뿐만 아니라 이해관계자의 보호에 있어서도 미비점이 존재하고, 세제나 관련 법제의 보완이 이루어지지 않고 있다. 우리보다 앞서 삼각조직재편제도를 도입한 일본의 선례를 보면, 동 제도의 연혁적 기원이 되는 미국 회사법제에서의 삼각합병제도와는 다른 면이 존재한다. 미국 회사법제에서는 인수·합병 방식의 지배구조 개선전략이 유효하고 합병법제의 유연성이 높아 타 회사를 인수하기 위해 자회사인 특수목적회사를 신설하여 삼각합병을 추진하는 방식이 적극적으로 이용된다. 일본에서는 실제 영업을 영위하는 자회사를 통해 삼각조직재편을 하는 경우가 대부분이고, 이로써 동일한 기업그룹 내 회사 간 구조조정의 목적으로 삼각조직재편이 이루어지고 있다. 우리와 법제적 환경이 유사한 일본의 사례가 우리에게 시사하는 바를 염두에 둘 필요가 있다. 이러한 이해를 토대로 삼각조직재편에서의 이해관계자 보호에 대해 논하고자 한다. 이에 삼각합병에서의 이해관계자 보호에 대하여 먼저 논의하고, 이를 삼각분할합병과 삼각주식교환에 확대하여 적용하는 방식으로 전개하고자 한다. 먼저 주주의 보호에 있어서는 피합병회사와 합병회사의 모회사에 있어서 주주 보호의 필요성과 구체적 보호방안을 검토하였다. 그리고 채권자의 보호와 관련하여서는 피합병회사의 채권자 보호에 관해 검토한 후, 소멸하는 피합병회사가 발행한 전환사채 등을 보유한 특수채권자의 문제와 개선방안을 살펴보았다. 삼각분할합병과 삼각주식교환의 경우, 대가발행회사의 주주 보호의 문제가 삼각합병에서의 논의와 동일하게 적용되나, 조직재편의 개별적 특성이 대가의 유연화 현상과 결합하면서 차이가 나는 부분이 존재한다. 특히 주식의 포괄적 교환의 경우, 주식교환 대가의 유연화에 따라 기존 조직재편 제도와의 정합성 유지 문제도 함께 고려되어야 한다. 따라서 대가발행회사의 주주뿐만 아니라 채권자의 보호 측면의 논의 역시 조직재편제도 전체적인 측면에서 살펴보아야 할 문제이다. 삼각조직재편제도가 인수·합병제도로서의 효율성이 높은 만큼, 상법상 조직재편제도로서 안정적으로 정착되도록 이에 따른 이해관계자의 보호방안이 입법적 조치를 통해 조속히 마련되어야 할 것이다. This study discusses the protection of shareholders and creditors, which has been an issue since triangular reorganization system was introduced according to increase in the flexibility of reorganization consideration. The 2011 Revised Commercial Law introduced triangular merger first, as part of triangular reorganization system, and then the 2015 Revision accepted the flexibility of the reorganization consideration on spin-off merger and share exchange as well. However, the triangular reorganization system under the current commercial law not only has something unclear in reorganization procedure, but also is insufficient to ensure the protection of shareholders and creditors. Moreover, no effort has yet been make to complement relevant tax and legal systems. In the case of the triangular reorganization of Japan, which introduced it earlier than Korea, there is a different aspect comparing with the triangular merger of United States corporation law, which is its historical origin. The acquisition of another company under US corporation law involves active utilization of the method of establishing a new special purpose company as a subsidiary company and then pursuing triangular merger. The reason is that, under US corporation law, governance improvement strategy based on merger and acquisition is effective and the legal system on M&A is highly flexible. In contrast, most cases of triangular reorganization in Japan involve reorganization using by subsidiary companies that actually operate businesses, thus mainly for the purpose of restructuring companies within the same corporate group. Since Korea and Japan have similar environments of corporate legal system, it is necessary to keep in mind the suggestive points of the cases of Japan. Based on such background knowledge, discussion will be led concerning the protection of shareholders and creditors in triangular reorganization. This paper about the protection of shareholders and creditors in triangular merger will be presented first, which then will be expanded to be applied to other triangular reorganization. Regarding the protection of shareholders of the parent companies of merged company and merging company, the necessity for special protection methods was reviewed along with concrete protective methods. As for creditor protection, review was made concerning the protection of the creditors of merged company; and then concerning the problems of special creditors who own such as convertible bonds issued by disappearing merged company, and also concerning methods for solving out such problems. In dealing with the problem of protecting the shareholders of the related companies on other sorts of triangular reorganization, the same discussion made for triangular merger can also be applied, except for some differences, however, according to the characteristics of individual reorganizations that demand the application of the flexibility of consideration. Especially in the case of comprehensive share exchange, the problem of maintaining consistency must be considered along with the flexibility of share exchange consideration. Accordingly, discussion about the protection of the creditors of the company issuing consideration, just as about the protection of its shareholders. must involve a comprehensive viewpoint of reorganization system. Since triangular reorganization system is highly efficient as an M&A system, it would be necessary to take legislative measures to prepare appropriate protective methods for shareholders and creditors, so that triangular reorganization system can be stably settled under the commercial law.

재조직 선정기업 특성에 관한 연구

이현석,구정숙 한국산업경영학회 2010 經營硏究 Vol.25 No.2

This paper empirically analyzes financial characteristics between legal reorganization(liquidation of company and Vergleich) and private reorganization (workout), and between manufacturing firms and non-manufacturing firms from selection time point of reorganization to the seconde time. Samples are constituted with 62 firms of private reorganization and 103 firms of legal reorganization. We select the leverage ratio from financial institutes, profitability, firm’s size, the ratio of secured debt, negotiation power between borrower and lender, liquidity and the ratio of large stock holders as financial characteristic variable. Empirical results are tested by probit analysis, Fisher's Z-test and ANOVA. We find that All companies, manufacturing, non-manufacturing firms have the higher firms size to private reorganization firms. And the higher leverage ratio is preferred in legal reorganization firms. Leverage, ratio of secured debt, profitability and liquidity show different results according to the time point of reorganizations and whether manufacturing firms or not. 본 연구는 워크아웃에 의한 사적 재조직 기업과 회사정리나 화의제도와 같은 법적 재조직 기업 사이의 재무적 특성이 재조직 선정과 진행 시점 및 산업(제조업, 비제조업) 각각에서 차이가 있는지를 실증분석을 통해 살펴보고 있다. 표본기업은 1997년~2007년에 코스피 및 코스닥 기업 중 사적 재조직 62개사와 법적 재조직 103개사이며, 재무적 특성 변수로는 금융기관 부채비중, 수익성, 기업규모, 보증 회사채 비중, 채무자와 채권자 교섭력, 유동성, 최대주주 비중 등이다. 실증분석 방법으로는 ANOVA 및 Fisher의 Z검정, 프로빗 분석 방법 등을 사용하였다. 분석 결과 전체기업 및 제조업과 비제조업에서 재조직 직전 년과 1, 2차년 모두 기업규모가 클수록 사적 재조직이 보다 선호됨을 발견하였다. 전체기업에서 재조직 시점 모두 법적 재조직은 사적 재조직에 비해 부채비율이 클수록 선호됨을 또한 확인하였다. 부채비율과 보증회사채 비중, 수익성, 유동성 등의 변수는 산업 및 재조직 시점에 따라 다양한 결과를 보이고 있다.

地方行政體制改編에 關한 論議와 成果에 대한 考察

하승완(Ha, Seung-Wan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學論叢 Vol.17 No.2

지방행정체제개편에 관하여는 오래전부터 많은 논의가 있었으나 별다른 성과를 거두지 못했다. 그런데 이명박 정부가 출범하면서 2008. 10. 7. 지방행정체제개편을 100대 국정과제의 하나로 선정하고, 국회가 2009. 3. 지방행정 체제개편 특별위원회를 구성하여 활동을 시작함으로써 지방행정체제개편안은 국회차원에서 급물살을 타게 되었다. 국회 지방행정체제개편 특별위원회는 그동안 발의된 지방행정체제개편에 관한 여러 법안을 대상으로 수차례의 법안심사소위원회와 지방순회 공청회 등을 거쳐 2010. 4. 27. 제289회 국회(임시회) 제9차 지방행정체제개편 특별위원회에서 「지방행정체제개편에 관한 특별법안(대안)」을 의결함으로써 국회 지방행정체제개편 특별위원회의 활동을 사실상 마무리했다. 지방행정체제개편은 단순히 지방행정이나 지방자치의 문제만은 아니다. 지방행정체제개편은 국가구조 및 국가의 틀과도 관계가 깊은 것이므로 지방행정체제개편은 중앙정부나 정치권의 이해관계에 따라 좌우되어서는 안되고, 국가의 백년대계와 국가기능의 최적화 및 지방자치와 지방분권이라는 시대적 소명을 함께 아우르는 것이어야 한다. 이러한 시대적 요청에 따라 국정의 중심에 있는 국회가 「지방행정체제의 개편에 관한 특별법안」을 마련한 것은 나름대로 그 의미가 크다고 할 수 있다. 그런데 이 법안의 내용을 들여다보면 정치권에서 지금까지 추진해 오던 도(道)의 폐지와 지방행정계층의 단층화 또는 도와 시ㆍ군ㆍ구의 중간정도 규모의 광역화를 통한 지방자치행정의 내실화와 지방자치행정능력의 제고를 위한 방안이나 대책은 오간데 없이, 기초지방자치단체의 통합방안을 입법화한 것에 불과하여 지방행정체제개편의 의미와 취지를 크게 퇴색시키고 있다. 그리고 이 법안은 통합 기초지방자치단체의 지나친 광역화를 꾀하거나 특별시 및 광역시의 관할구역 안에 있는 구(區)를 자치구로 하면서도 구의회를 두지 않도록 함은 물론 그 통합결정을 주민투표에 의하지 않는 등 여러가지 위헌적 요소를 내포하고 있다. 따라서 本稿에서는 2005년 이후 지방행정체제개편에 대한 정치권을 비롯한 각계의 논의와 이 법안의 성립과정에서 논의되거나 형성된 정치권과 중앙정부의 지방행정체제개편안 및 이 법안이 헌법과 헌법이념이 추구하는 국민의 기본권 및 지방자치제도의 보장과 지방자치의 본질에 비추어 타당한 것인가의 여부를 살피고 지방행정체 제개편에 관한 올바른 방향을 제시해 보고자 한다. There have been a number of discussions on reorganization of local administrative system, but no particular results have been achieved. However, as the President Lee's administration was officially launched on October 7, 2008, reorganization of local administrative system was designated as one of 100 grand schemes and an ad-hoc committee for reorganization of local administrative system was developed, which was promoted in the level of the National Assembly. The 9th ad-hoc committee voted for the special bill on reorganization of local administrative system on April 27, 2010 via a few times of judging committee and local public hearings targeting several bills proposed on the reorganization. The reorganization of local administrative system is not related only to local administration or self-government. As it is closely related with national structures and frames, it must not rely on central government or political interests, and comprehend national callings such as grand schemes, optimalization of national functions, realization of self-government and local decentralization. According to such callings, the national assembly developed 「Special Bill on Reorganization of Local Administrative System」, which has a great meaning. However, as it did not pay special attention to directions for abolition of provincial systems, stratification of local adminstration classes, and promotion of internal stability in local governments which have been discussed by political parties and just legislated directions on integration, it deteriorated the meaning and intent of the re-organization of local administrative system. This bill has unconstitutional factors in that it forces excessive integration of local government systems, approves no district council while accepting districts as autonomous regions or does not allow residents to decide their integration Therefore, this study examines whether discussion on the reorganization of local administration system in various areas including political parties, and the bill on the reorganization proposed by political parties and central government are valid according to Constitution, basic rights of the public, guaranty and essence of local government system, and presents right directions for the reorganization of local administrative system.

지방공기업의 조직개편에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구

이재연 ( Lee Jaeyoun ),윤주철 ( Yoon Joochul ) 한국지방행정연구원 2021 地方行政硏究 Vol.35 No.1

This study set out to measure the degree of reorganization and test empirically a variety of factors influencing the degree based on survey data of local public enterprises in South Korea. Based on face-to-face interview data with personnel and finance staff members at local public enterprises collected in 2017 and 2018, this study analyzed factors influencing the degree of reorganization with an ordered logit model. Major influencing factors were set based on previous studies and included internal bureaucratic, external environmental, and head factors of local public enterprises. Of internal bureaucratic characteristics of local public enterprises, the degree of the organization's centralization, level of red tape, and degree of organizational autonomy were deemed to have direct impacts on reorganization. The empirical analysis results show that the degree of reorganization was greater at organizations where red tapes were perceived to be more serious. Organizations usually make attempts at various innovations and changes in reaction to external environmental factors as well as their internal characteristics. The findings show that the bigger the environmental uncertainty was, the greater the degree of reorganization was. In the study, it was assumed that the head(leadership) factors would have effects on the reorganization of local public enterprises that were generally small in size and high in the level of external control. Although there were no differences in the degree of reorganization according to the past careers of heads, reorganization tended to be concentrated in the early days of their service. Unlike previous empirical researches on reorganization that focused on government agencies, this study contributes to test the empirical research on factors influencing the reorganization of local public enterprises.

일본의 사적기업정리에 관한 고찰

이승환 ( Seung Hwan Lee ) 한국상사판례학회 2014 상사판례연구 Vol.27 No.4

The financial Crisis has brought numerous changes to corporate restructuring in Japan market. Before the Crisis, the Japanese government played a major role in dealing with the insolvent enterprises. Recently in Japan, there are some kind of Private Corporate Reorganization has arisen; that is Corporate Reorganization Guidelines, Business Regenerate ADR,The previous procedure of composition for insolvency and liquidation became impractical due to the complicated procedure and the lack of specific knowledge for restructuring by the public administrative officials. As this procedure was unsuitable for prompt normalization of the financial market during the Crisis, a new solution was needed and the answer was Private Corporate Reorganization. Private Corporate Reorganization is thus a process of settlement and discussion in which the creditor financial institutions and the debtor corporation contract a corporate reorganization agreement in order to normalize the corporation by readjusting the repayment plan and restructuring. Private Corporate Reorganization is a private agreement that lacks a court``s binding enforcement, but many codes are being revised to incorporatePrivate Corporate Reorganization as a dependable method of corporate restructuring.

한국과 미국의 회사정리제도의 실증적 비교분석

강경이(Kang Kyung-Yi),이상원(Lee Sang-Won) 한국국제회계학회 2011 국제회계연구 Vol.0 No.36

본 연구는 우리나라 회사정리제도의 상대적인 효율성에 대한 연구를 위하여 우리나라와 미국의 회사정리종결기업의 회생절차 종결이후의 회계성과를 비교분석 하였다. 이러한 성과비교 분석은 세 가지 방법으로 수행되었다. 첫째, 횡단면적 시각에서 회사정리종결 이후 성과가 동종 산업평균과 비교해서 어떤 차이가 있는지를 개별국가별로 분석하였다. 둘째, 시계열적 시각에서 회사정리개시결정 이전에 비해 회사정리종결 이후 성과에 어떤 변화가 있는지를 개별국가별로 분석하였다. 그리고 마지막으로 두 번째 방법으로 구해진 결과가 미국과 한국 간에 어떤 차이가 있는지를 분석하였다. 본 연구결과 한국과 미국의 회사정리종결기업의 성과는 여러 가지 점에서 비교적 뚜렷한 차이를 나타낸다. 특히, 미국은 회사정리제도를 통하여 부실기업의 수익성과 재무구조가 개선되어지는 경향이 매우 뚜렷한데 비하여, 한국은 영업성과을 개선하려는 경향이 상대적으로 두드러지게 보인다는 점이다. 즉, 미국의 회사정리종결기업은 보다 내실 있고 생존력이 강한 기업으로 변하는데 비하여, 한국의 회사정리기업은 기업의 활동규모 혹은 시장 점유율에 보다 치중하는 외형 지향적 경향을 보인다는 점이다. 회사정리제도가 시장 경쟁력이나 생존력이 낮은 기업을 높은 기업으로 변화시키는데 근본적 목적이 있다고 한다면, 이러한 연구결과는 우리나라 회사정리제도의 제도적 개선에 필요한 정책적 시사점을 제시한다. This paper is intended to compare the accounting performances of the reorganized firms of Korea after completion of reorganization with those of the United States in order to analyze the relative efficiency of the institution of reorganization of Korea compared to the Chapter 11 of the United States The comparative analysis of the accounting performances is done in three steps. First, in terms of cross-sectional perspective, the accounting performances of reorganized firms after completion of reorganization are compared to those of the normal firms in the same industry separately for each country. Second, in terms of time-series perspective, the accounting performances of reorganized firms after completion of reorganization are compared to those of the same reorganized firms before reorganization separately for each country. Finally, in terms of cross-countrye organizati, the measures derived frrg the second step are further analyzed whether two countryehave signifof nt differences. M lor conclusion frrg the analysis is that the Chapter 11 of the United Statesehas more focused objectives, re reorgobjectives of reorganization f n be more efficiently executed in reality compared to that of d firms bef. The Chapter 11 of the United Statesef n help reorganized firms to imprrve pzeditability re reorgsoundompared financial struy exe relatively more efficiently, whereas the institution of reorganization of d firms befo is rather focused upon the operational aspects of the firms rather than pzeditability re reorgsound financial structure of reorganized firms, which makes the reorganized firms of the United States recover from bankruptcy more rapidly and more substantially compared to those of South Korea. These differences provide very helpful implications to South Korea when South Korea changes the current form and procedure of reorganization.

구조조정 세제의 조세회피유인과 개선방안에 관한 연구

최혜원 한국조세법학회 2017 조세논총 Vol.2 No.2

구조조정 세제의 도입취지를 정부는 구조조정의 걸림돌을 제거하여 원활한 기업구조조정을 지원하는 것이라고 하고 있으며, 세제의 목표를 과세중립성 확보 및 형평성 제고로 들고 있다. 또한 기존 많은 연구들에서도 구조조정 세제의 기저로 조세중립성을 제시하고 있다. 그러나 구조조정 세제가 갖는 태생적인 한계인 거래의 복잡성 및 거래구조의 다양성은 당초부터 조세중립성을 구현하기 어렵게 하고, 오히려 정부는 과세를 이연하기 위한 도구로 부분적으로만 조세중립성을 차용한 것으로 보인다. 이에 따라 완전한 조세중립성이 확보되지 않은 이상 납세의무자는 경제적으로 유리한 구조조정 전략을 계획할 것이며, 특히 구조조정 거래의 상당부분이 특수관계자간 거래로 거래 시도가 용이할 뿐만 아니라 과세특례의 선택조항 등으로 납세의무자가 구조조정을 조세회피 도구로 사용하는 것을 예측할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 구조조정 과세체계의 조세회피 관점에서 문제점 및 한계를 분석하기 위하여, 구조조정을 통하여 조세절감이 발생되었으나 법 문언이 정한 테두리 내에서는 문제가 없었던 여섯 가지 사례를 제시하였다. 사례는 합병시 이월결손금 승계 문제, 적격물적분할시 시가승계 문제, 구조조정으로 인한 미실현손익 남용 문제, 포합주식에 대한 합병신주 교부시 손금 인정 문제 및 소득변경 목적의 구조조정에 관한 것이다. 이러한 사례들은 현행 구조조정 세제 체계 하에서 구조조정이 조세회피유인이 될 수 있음에도 불구하고 개별 거래유형별로 세제를 수정하는 것이 어려워 그대로 유지하고 있는 것들로서, 구조조정 세제가 특정 거래형태별로 형식적인 요건이나 법문을 세밀하게 수정·보완 하는 것만으로는 조세회피방지를 하는 것에는 한계가 있음을 보여주었다. 또한 구조조정 세제의 조세회피방지에 대한 대안으로 기존 다른 연구들에서 제시한 포괄적인 조세회피방지규정의 도입을 위한 구체적인 입법 방향을 제시하였다. 본 연구는 구체적인 구조조정 조세절감 사례를 통하여 구조조정 세제가 갖는 조세회피 관점에서의 태생적인 한계를 확인하고 대안으로서 법령의 세부적인 개정 보다는 구조조정 세제에서의 별도의 포괄적인 조세회피방지규정 도입에 초점을 맞추어서 연구하였다는 점에서 의의를 갖는다. What would be the main purpose of Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations? The government states that the support of tax payer’s reorganization process by eliminating the obstacle to reorganization is the main purpose while the securement of tax neutrality and the improvement of fairness is the objective of such taxation. Furthermore, the tax neutrality is also presented and used as the base of Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations in prior studies. However, due to the inherent limitation of Taxation of Corporate Reorgani- zations such as complexity of transaction and diversity of transaction structure, ensuring of absolute tax neutrality is not possible. For that reason, it seems that the government has partially applied the concept of tax neutrality in order to defer taxation. Thus, unless the absolute tax neutrality is to be ensured, due to the nature of reorganization transaction such as the availability of related party transactions and right to choose only if favorable relevant special tax treatment, it would be unavoidable for the tax payers to use the reorganization as tax avoidance strategy. In this study, six cases of tax saving through reorganization were presented in order to analyze the issues and limitations of tax avoidance in Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations. Cases are related to the issues on i) succession of NOL(Net Operating Loss) carryforwards at the time of Merger, ii) succes- sion of market value at the time of qualified Qualified Physical Corporate Division, iii) abuse of unrealized profit and loss due to reorganization, iv) recognition of tax deduction at the time of issuance of merger new stocks on combined-stocks, and v) reorganization for the purpose of income change. The characteristics of the presented cases are that they are difficult to revise current taxation by individual transaction types, even though it has been confirmed that the tax avoidance effect is generated by abusing the Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations structure. Through this case study, it is demonstrated that the continuous amendment of formal requirements in details and complementary actions of current pro- visions would still have the limitation in prevention of tax avoidance due to complexity of reorganization transaction. Therefore, the implementation of Comprehensive Provision for Prevention of Tax Avoidance (substantial require- ments rule), which were introduced in prior studies, has been suggested and the relevant statute has been proposed as the solution for tax avoidance in Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations. This study is meaningful in the view that it proved the specific cases as a basis for the need of introducing Comprehensive Provision for Prevention of Tax Avoidance in the Taxation of Corporate Reorganizations, which has been presented in prior studies, and that it proposed the statute as a practical measure.

회사조직재편시 주주의 지분가치 보장에 관한 제도 —독일의 2023년 개정 조직재편법의 주식보상 청구권과의 비교법적 고찰—

최문희 한국경영법률학회 2024 經營法律 Vol.34 No.3

우리나라 상법은 합병 등 조직재편에서 주주의 보호수단을 다수 도입하고 있지만, 주주의 이익을 충분히 고려하지 못하고 그 미비점이 방치되는 경우가 적지 않다. 조직재편에 관한 법적 규율에서 무엇보다도 중요한 것은 조직재편의 이해관계자의 이익을 보호하는 한편 조직재편에 의해 기존 체제를 효율적이고 신속하게 변화시키려는 회사의 요청을 조화시키는 것이다. 법전상으로는 주주 보호를 위한 제도가 마련되어 있는 것처럼 보이지만 현실적으로 조직재편의 원활한 진행을 위해서 그 제도들이 실효적으로 기능하지 못하고 있다. 이 글에서는 우리나라 합병 등 조직재편 실무에서 제기되어 온 상법상 주주보호 제도의 기능상 한계를 지적하고 비교법적으로 2023년 개정된 독일의 조직재편법의 주식보상 제도의 내용을 소개하고 검토과제와 입법 설계시 고려할 사항을 제시하였다. 합병 등 조직재편에서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 조직재편 당사회사의 주주들이 조직재편 전에 갖던 주식의 가치를 조직재편 후에도 유지하는 것이다. 독일의 2023년 개정 조직재편법은조직재편 비율이 불공정한 경우 조직재편 당사 회사의 주주가 취할 수 있는 권리를 정비하여 합병비율 등 조직재편비율이 불공정한 경우 주식보상 제도를 신설하여 공정한 합병비율 등에 의해 주주의 지분가치를 적확하게 보장해 줄 토대를 마련하였다. 우리나라 제도설계에서 참조할 사항과 고려할 논점은 주주보호 제도의 비교(조직재편 저지형과 보상형), 주식보상의 상세한 사항으로서 주식보상의 선택권, 주식보상의 수량, 주식보상을 위한 주식조달 방법으로서 신주발행과 자기주식 방식과 그에 따른 상법 규정의 정비, 퇴사 주주의 구제 등을 검토하였다. Although the Korean Commercial Law(“KCC”) introduces a number of shareholder protection measures in corporate reorganizations such as mergers and divisions, those do not fully consider the interests of shareholders. What is most important in corporate reorganization is protecting the interests of stakeholders and harmonizing the company's request to efficiently and quickly change the existing system through reorganization. According to the KCC, it appears that there are several systems in place to protect shareholders, but in reality, those systems do not function well to protect shareholders. The purpose of this article is to point out the functional limitations of the shareholder protection system under the KCC, which has been raised in the practice of reorganization, such as mergers in Korea, and to introduce the contents of Germany's Reorganization Act, which was revised in 2023. In reorganizations such as mergers, the shareholders of the corporations maintain the value of the shares they had before the reorganization even after the reorganization, so it is necessary to prevent unfairness in the reorganization ratio, such as the merger ratio. Above all, it is noteworthy that in 2023, if the reorganization ratio is unfair, a share compensation system has been introduced. This article explains the details of German compensation system with shares and summarize the matters to be referred to and issues to consider.