Page 1 is shown as is; from page 2 on, the preview is blurred. Buy it to download the complete original file right away (the file itself is written in Korean).
Packed with real examples and experience. Download it now and save time.
Save your valuable time
Fast, accurate and useful.
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate it.
1 / 7
좌우로 밀어서 페이지를 넘겨보세요
이사의 지위는 대표이사의 계약이 아니라 주주의 뜻에서 나온다는 것, 이 판결이 정리한 원칙이에요.
| 전체 페이지 수 | 7페이지 |
|---|---|
| 파일 형식 | 한글(HWP) |
| 등록일 | 2025.06.30 |
해당 자료는 No AI 자료입니다. 인싸이트를 얻고 새롭게 가공해 보세요.
자료를 받아서 이용하면 품질이 확 올라갑니다.
When Do Directors and Auditors Take Office in a Korean Company? Case Note on Supreme Court En Banc Decision 2016Da251215 (2017) on Shareholder Resolutions and Appointment Contracts
※ You can preview page 1 as is. Buy it to download the complete original file right away. The file itself is written in Korean.
A 7-page Korean corporate law case note on a 2017 en banc Supreme Court decision. After minority shareholders elected a new director and auditor, the CEO refused to sign appointment contracts. The paper sets out the facts, the old rule requiring a contract, competing views, and why the court held that the resolution plus the appointee's consent is enough.
이사의 지위는 대표이사의 계약이 아니라 주주의 뜻에서 나온다는 것, 이 판결이 정리한 원칙이에요.
The earlier case law held that "a shareholders' resolution electing an auditor is merely an internal company decision to make the appointee the company's auditor, so the appointee does not acquire the position of auditor merely because the shareholders' meeting passed a resolution; only when the company's representative offers an appointment contract under the resolution and the appointee accepts does the appointee take office and become able to perform the auditor's duties, so a person who was merely elected by the meeting but has not concluded an appointment contract with the company has not yet acquired the position of auditor." That followed the majority view that, beyond the shareholders' resolution, a separate appointment contract with the CEO is needed to acquire the position.
A company is a legal person formed for commercial or other profit-making purposes, so it has its own legal capacity, but as a social entity it needs organs to make decisions, carry out business and express its decisions outward. In a general partnership, a kind of personal company, each partner in principle has the power to manage and represent the company, and even when managers and representatives are appointed they must be chosen from among the partners, so organs and members coincide. A stock company, however, is a capital company, and apart from the shareholders' meeting made up of the shareholders who invest in and own the company, being an organ of the company does not require being a shareholder. Among the organs of a stock company, the shareholders' meeting is the key body through which shareholders decide the company's will on its basic structure and important management matters. Article 361 of the Commercial Act provides that "the shareholders' meeting may resolve only matters provided for in this Act or the articles of incorporation," and matters that the act assigns to the shareholders' meeting cannot be delegated to another organ or a third party even by the articles or a shareholders' resolution. Articles 382(1) and 409(1) also provide that "directors and auditors shall be elected at the shareholders' meeting." The purpose of these provisions is to reflect the separation of ownership and management in a stock company by giving the shareholders' meeting, the shareholders' only channel for taking part in management, exclusive power to elect directors and auditors.
Nonetheless, recognizing the position of a director or auditor only when a separate appointment contract is concluded with the CEO, regardless of the shareholders' resolution, contradicts the original purpose of the Commercial Act, which makes electing directors and auditors the exclusive power of the shareholders' meeting and a matter of collective decision by the shareholders. And while the CEO represents the company and has authority over all judicial and extrajudicial acts concerning its business, electing directors or auditors clearly does not fall within that authority. The position of director or auditor should therefore be regarded as acquired when there is an election resolution by the shareholders' meeting and the consent of the person elected.
Under the Commercial Act, a director is a member of the board and has the power to take part in decisions on the company's business.
To add: this decision was handed down by the en banc Supreme Court on March 23, 2017, and on the same day the en banc court, in decision 2015Da248342, changed its case law to hold that only shareholders listed on the shareholder register can exercise voting and other shareholder rights against the company. Both decisions reflect a move to handle corporate relationships uniformly as matters of collective organization. In the paper's statement of facts, one date for the shareholders' meeting is given as 2013, but according to the judgment the correct date is December 1, 2014. Directors' terms and pay are set by the articles or a shareholders' resolution (Commercial Act Articles 383 and 388), and once in office their relationship with the company follows the rules on mandate (Article 382(2)).
✦ At a glance
In Korea, shareholders elect directors and auditors, and since 2017 the CEO cannot block them by refusing a contract.
In Delaware, a director elected by shareholders takes office on election and acceptance, and disputes over who holds the seat go to the Court of Chancery under Section 225.
Note: the paper itself is written in Korean and discusses Korean law. This page is general study information, not legal advice.
과제를 직접 쓰는 데 도움이 되는 영어 프롬프트예요.
Tip! Prompt 에 자신의 생각을 추가해서 하면 훨씬 더 ✨ 좋습니다.
캠퍼스다운에서 레포트 받고 잘 쓰는 법 3가지, AI로 참고자료 제대로 재가공하기 →Prompt 1
I'm writing a university assignment on "이사·감사 지위 취득과 임용계약: 대법원 2016다251215 전원합의체 판결 평석, 선임결의와 피선임자 승낙". Help me build an outline (introduction, 2-3 body sections, conclusion) that covers 대법원 2016다251215, 이사 감사 지위 취득 and 임용계약. Don't write the paper for me - give me guiding questions for each section. My own perspective: [자신의 생각 넣는 곳] Please respond in Korean.
Prompt 2
Explain the key concepts "대법원 2016다251215" and "이사 감사 지위 취득" in simple terms, then show how they connect to the topic "이사·감사 지위 취득과 임용계약: 대법원 2016다251215 전원합의체 판결 평석, 선임결의와 피선임자 승낙". Point out common misunderstandings students have about them. My own perspective: [자신의 생각 넣는 곳] Please respond in Korean.
Prompt 3
Suggest 3 real-world cases or examples I could analyze in an assignment on "이사·감사 지위 취득과 임용계약: 대법원 2016다251215 전원합의체 판결 평석, 선임결의와 피선임자 승낙", focusing on "임용계약". For each, tell me what I should look up and verify in official or academic sources. My own perspective: [자신의 생각 넣는 곳] Please respond in Korean.
Prompt 4
Review my draft paragraph on "이사·감사 지위 취득과 임용계약: 대법원 2016다251215 전원합의체 판결 평석, 선임결의와 피선임자 승낙" (key idea: "전원합의체 판결 평석"). Give feedback on logic, evidence and clarity, and mark where I need a citation. My paragraph: [paste here] My own perspective: [자신의 생각 넣는 곳] Please respond in Korean.
Ranked by actual participation. Results in about a minute.
Loading…
Loading view counts…
Campusdown is a lifelong-learning community in Korea offering study materials, information on government support, student loans and scholarships, and more. Don't miss our free resources.
Go to the Campusdown home page →Refund policy