이사의 책임(최근개정상법반영)
페이지 정보
작성일 22-11-29 11:39
본문
Download : 이사의 책임(최근개정상법반영).hwp
따라서 이사의 권리남용…(투비컨티뉴드 )
설명
이사의 책임(최근개정상법반영)
주식회사의 지배구조의 하나인 이사의 책임을 개정상법을 반영하여 작성했습니다. 또한 이사의 주의의무의 위반의 기준을 결정하는데 있어 경영판단의 법칙에 의한 한계가 고려되어야 한다는 점도 유의하여야 할 것이다. 상법 제399조와 제401조 및 관련규정들은 이사에 관해 일반 법률규정을 넘어 특별히 규율할 당위성에 따라 입법된 것이 분명하다. 이사는 주식회사의 기관은 아니지만 이사회의 구성원으로 또한 대표이사의 전제요건으로서 그 권한이 막대한 만큼 이사의 책임을 강화하는 방향으로 입법을 추진해 왔고 주주의 권리의식 고취에 따라 이사의 책임을 추궁하는 주주대표소송이 점차로 증가되고 있는 현실이다.
레포트/법학행정
,법학행정,레포트
Download : 이사의 책임(최근개정상법반영).hwp( 41 )
_hwp_01.gif)
_hwp_02.gif)
_hwp_03.gif)
_hwp_04.gif)
_hwp_05.gif)
_hwp_06.gif)
목 차
I. 서 언 ·····································································································1
II. 이사와 회사와의 관계 ··············································································1
III. 각국의 이사의 책임 ················································································2
1. 日本 ······································································································2
2. 미국 ······································································································2
3. 독일 ······································································································3
IV. 이사의 회사에 대한 손해배상 책임(제399조 제1항) ····································4
1. 손해배상책임 ··························································································4
2. 임무해태책임 ·························································································5
3. 자본충실의 책임 ·····················································································6
4. 책임의 소멸 ···························································································7
V. 제3자에 대한 책임(제401조) ····································································8
1. 의의(입법취지) ·······················································································8
2. 법적성질 ································································································8
3. 책임의 원인(原因) ·························································································10
4. 책임을 지는 이사의 범위 ·······································································10
5. 제3자의 범위 ························································································11
6. 입증책임 및 책임의 소멸 ·······································································13
7. 책임의 제한(일부면제) ···········································································13
VI.업무집행관여자(사실상 이사)의 책임 (제401조의2) ····································14
1. 의의 ····································································································14
2. 사실상 이사의 범위 ···············································································15
3. 책임의 내용 ·························································································17
VII. 경영판단의 법칙···················································································19
1. 의의 ····································································································19
2. 우리나라의 학설과 판례 ·········································································19
3. 日本 의 경우 ·························································································20
VIII. 배상책임保險(보험) ·····················································································21
1. 의의 ····································································································21
2. 도입논의 ······························································································21
IX. 2006년 상법개정안의 내용(이사의 회사에 대한 책임감경) ·························22
1. 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 과실책임의 명culture(상법개정시안 제399조 제1항)·22
2. 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 감경(상법개정시안 제400조 제2항)····················22
X.結論 ·····································································································23
이상에서 이사의 책임인 회사에 대한 책임과 제3자에 대한 책임에 대하여 살펴보았다. 그러나 이사의 책임이 지나치게 엄격하면 유능한 인재의 확보를 곤란하게 하여 이사의 경영활동을 위축시키는 결과를 초래할 수 있어 상법개정안에는 이사의 책임을 줄여주기 위하여 지금껏 학설대립이 심했던 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 과실책임을 명culture(상법개정시안 제406조의 2 제2항)하고 있으며, 이사의 회사에 대한 책임의 감경으로 고의.중과실을 제외하고 최근 1년간의 보수액의 6배까지로 이사의 책임액을 제한하고 있어 이사의 경영활동을 위축시키는 결과를 줄이는 방법이라 생각된다 그러나 현행 상법 제400조상에는 이사의 책임을 총주주의 동의로 면제 할 수 있다고 하지만 사실상 불가능하기에 문제를 제기하고 있지만 현행 상법 제400조의 회사에 대한 책임의 면제 규정은 아주 예외적인 경우의 이사의 책임을 면제해주기 위한 취지의 규정으로 주주총회의 특별결의로 면제를 허용한다면 이러한 제도의 취지와 어긋나게 이사의 책임규정을 무용화 할 수 있다는 견해에 긍정한다. 상법이 회사에 대한 이사의 책임을 엄격하게 규정한 것은 이사의 위법. 부당한 행위를 억제함으로써 회사의 건전한 발전과 주주 및 채권자 등의 이익을 보호하기 위한 것이다. 그러나 이러한 이사의 책임에 대한 규정들은 이사가 무자력인 경우 실효가 없기 때문에 책임保險(보험) 제도의 도입이 필요하다.
주식회사의 지배구조의 하나인 이사의 책임을 개정상법을 반영하여 작성했습니다.이사의책임 , 이사의 책임(최근개정상법반영)법학행정레포트 ,
이사의책임
순서
다.
