1. 필자의 연구가 입법(상법) 및 판례에 반영된 것을 상법 각 편별로 정리하면 다음과 같다. (1) 상법총칙당연상인의 개념의 기초가 되는 기본적 상행위에 「리스」ㆍ「프랜차이즈」 및 「팩토링」을 추가하고, 현재 우리가 사용하지 않는 법률용어를 다른 용어로 변경하였다. 또한 등기상호의 사전배척권에 관한 규정을 상업등기법의 경우와 일치시켰고, 상업등기의 공고에 관한 규정을 폐지하였으며, 영업양도인의 경업금지의무에 관한 규정을 균형있게 문언조정하였다. (2) 상행위법격지자간의 상사계약의 성립시기에 관한 규정을 삭제하였고, 육상운송인의 운송물의 공탁ㆍ경매권에 관한 규정을 합리적으로 문언조정하였으며, 공중접객업자의 임치물에 대한 책임을 과실책임으로 하였고, 「리스」ㆍ「프랜차이즈」 및 「팩토링」의 거래에 있어서 당사자간의 권리ㆍ의무 등에 대하여 규정하였다. (3) 회사법회사의 의의에서 「사단성」을 삭제하였고, 대법원판례가 법인격부인론을 채택하였으며, 전자증권(주식의 전자등록 등)을 도입하였고, 주주총회에서 전자투표제도를 도입하였다. 또한 집행임원제도를 (선택적으로나마) 상법에 최초로 도입하였고, 일정규모 이상의 상장회사에서 상근감사를 1인 이상 의무적으로 두도록 하였고, 감사 선임에 있어서 의결권 행사가 제한되는 경우 주주총회의 결의에 관하여 특별이해관계인과 같이 상법상 명문규정으로 의결권의 수에 산입하지 않는 것으로 하였다. 또한 사채총액에 대한 제한을 폐지하였다. (4) 보험법보험사고와 인과관계 없는 고지의무 위반의 경우, 종래의 판례는 보험계약을 해지하지 못하는 것으로 판시하였으나, (대법원전원합의체판결에 의한 것은 아니지만) 보험계약을 해지할 수 있는 판례로 (사실상) 변경되었다. (5) 항공운송법항공운송에 따른 당사자간의 권리ㆍ의무에 관한 사항을 상법에서 규정하였다. (6) 어음ㆍ수표법대법원전원합의체판결로써 어음위조의 증명책임을 피위조자(피고)에서 어음소지인(원고)으로 변경하였고, 대법원판례가 어음배서인 등에 민법상 보증책임을 지울려면 보증계약의 성립을 인정할 수 있는 당사자의 의사가 있어야 하고 또한 이를 엄격하게 제한하여 인정하도록 하였다. 또한 우리 대법원전원합의체판결로써 종래의 판례를 변경하여 국내어음(수표)인 경우 발행지 및 발행인의 명칭에 부기한 지의 기재가 없어도 유효한 어음(수표)으로 인정하였다. 또한 약속어음 폐지법률안에 반대하여 어음법상 약속어음에 관한 규정을 유지하도록 하였고, 전자자금이체에 관한 법률제정을 촉구하여 전자금융거래법에 이에 관한 일부내용이라도 규정하게 되었다. 2. 향후 상법 및 판례의 개정방향을 제시하면 다음과 같다. (1) 상법의 개정방향1) 상법총칙에서는 상인자격의 취득시기를 명확히 규정하여야 하고, 의제상인 중 설비상인에 관한 규정을 현실에 맞게 개정하여야 한다. 2) 상행위법에서는 익명조합과 합자조합에 관한 규정을 상법총칙으로 옮기고, 합자조합과 합자회사간의 규정을 조정하며, 상사매매에 관한 규정을 대폭 확장하고, 은행 등과의 거래에 따른 당사자간의 사법상 법률관계에 대하여 규정하여야 한다. 3) 회사법에서는 유한책임회사와 유한회사간의 규정을 조정하고, 보통주가 종류주인지 여부를 입법적으로 해결하며, 자기주식의 소각 및 처분에 관한 규정을 불합리하지 않게 다시 개정하고, 주주총회결의에서 출석정족수를 부활하며, 감독형 이사회를 의무적으로 두도록 한 대규모 상장회사에 대하여는 감독기관과 집행기관을 분리하기 위하여 의무적으로 집행임원을 두도록 하고, 집행임원을 둔 주식회사만 감사위원회를 둘 수 있도록 하며, 이사 등과 회사와의 거래에 관한 규정(상법 제398조 및 제542조의 9)을 상호 모순되지 않게 조정하여야 한다. 4) 보험법에서는 보험사기를 방지할 수 있는 획기적인 규정을 두고, 고지의무 위반 등과 인과관계 없는 보험사고의 경우에도 보험자가 보험계약을 해지할 수 있도록 명확히 규정하며, 자동차보험에 관한 규정을 대폭 확충하고, 보증보험에 관한 규정을 신설한다. 또한 연금보험 및 양로보험에 관한 규정을 재정리하고, 질병보험에 관한 규정을 신설하며, 보험계약법과 보험업법상 용어ㆍ보험의 분류 등을 통일하여야 한다. (2) 판례의 개정방향1) 회사법에서 사실상 집행임원을 근로자로 보는 대법원판례는 변경되어야 하고, 대표권의 대행권에 관한 선의는 상법 제395조가 아니라 민법상 표현대리에 관한 규정을 유추적용하는 것으로 판례가 변경되어야 한다. 2) 어음법에서 어음행위의 표현대리가 성립하기 위한 선의의 제3자의 범위에 대하여, 민법상 표현대리에 관한 규정을 적용하는 경우에도 직접의 상대방뿐만 아니라 그 후의 제3취득자를 포함하는 것으로 판례가 변경되어야 한다.

My studies on commercial law which have greatly influenced legislations(Korean Commercial Code) and Korean Supreme Court Judgements for amendments, are as followings. 1. Finance lease, franchise and factoring were newly regulated in 1995 revised Korean Commercial Code article 46(basic commercial transactions) no.19∼no.21, and the rights and obligations etc. of the parties concerned with such transactions were newly regulated in 2010 revised Korean Commercial Code articles 168-2∼168-12. 2. The liability of public entertainment service man for the goods given into his keeping by the guests was changed from no-fault liability to fault liability in 2010 revised Korean Commercial Code article 152 paragraph 1. 3. The association(Korean “SADAN”) in the definition of a company was deleted in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code article 169. 4. The doctrine of the disregard of the corporate entity was adopted clearly for the first time by Korean Supreme Court Judgement 97 DA 21604(Jan. 19, 2001). 5. 2011 Korean Commercial Code adopted executive officer system for the first time. Namely, Korean Commercial Code article 408-2 paragraph 1 enables companies to appoint executive officers by their choices, and those companies which appointed executive officers(will be termed “executive officer company” hereinafter) cannot appoint representative director. Executive officer company is a form of company which divides executive agency(executive officer) and supervisory agency(board of directors). After 1997 Financial Crisis in Korea, legislators made large listed companies with total asset 2 trillion or more Korean won(hereinafter referred to as “large listed companies”) appoint majority of outside (independent) directors and at least three outside directors compulsorily. Since there was no enactment about executive officers separated from supervisory board of directors before 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code, the board of directors failed to perform the role of supervisor. Furthermore, the board of directors with majority of outside directors which participated in decision-making of the company reduced the efficiency of management badly. In other words, participation of board of directors with majority of outside directors in decision-making produced mass “actual executive officers” for the efficiency of management, and those actual executive officers(widely called as “un-registered officers”) were out of laws. To prevent this side effect, the legislators should have enacted executive officers before enhancing board of directors' supervisory role by majority of outside directors. It is expected that companies with those actual executive officers should change (all or part of) them into executive officers(in other words, choose executive officer company) in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code articles 408-2∼408-9. If such large listed companies do not choose executive officer companies voluntarily, it is required that the re-amendment of Korean Commercial Code makes them choose executive officer companies compulsorily for the transparent management by enhancing board of director's supervisory role. 6. Electronic securities(electronic registration of shares etc.) were introduced in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code article 356-2 etc. 7. Electronic voting system in the shareholders' meeting was introduced in 2009 revised Korean Commercial Code article 368-4. 8. In case that the default of duty to notify has not affected the occurrence of the insured risks, whether the insurer is able to rescind his insurance contract or not has been sincerely discussed. While past Supreme Court Judgement 68 DA 2082(Feb. 18, 1969) etc. decided that the insurer could not rescind his insurance contract, on the contrary of above mentioned judgements recent Korean Supreme Court Judgement 2010 DA 25353(July 22, 2010) decided that the insurer could rescind his insurance contract. 9. A statement of the place where the bill, promissory note or check is issued, is absolutely required by Korean Bills Act article 1 no.7, article 75 no.6, Checks Act article 1 no.5. A bill of exchange, promissory note or check which does not mention the place of its issuance is deemed to have been drawn(made) in the place mentioned beside the name of the drawer(maker) by Korean Bills Act article 2 no.3, article 76 no.3, Checks Act article 2 no.3. In case that there is no statement of the issuance place(including the place mentioned beside the name of the drawer or maker, hereinafter the same shall apply) on the domestic bill, promissory note or check, whether such bill, promissory note or check is valid or invalid has been sincerely discussed. While past Korean Supreme Court Judgement 67 DA 1471(Sep. 5, 1967) etc. decided such bill, promissory note or check was invalid, recent Korean Supreme Court Judgements 95 DA 36466(Apr. 23, 1998) and 99 DA 23383(Aug. 19, 1999) repealed clearly past Judgements by the collegiate judgement of all Justices and decided that such bill, promissory note or check was valid for the protection of the holder of such bill, promissory note or check.

My studies on commercial law which have greatly influenced legislations(Korean Commercial Code) and Korean Supreme Court Judgements for amendments, are as followings. 1. Finance lease, franchise and factoring were newly regulated in 1995 revised Korean Commercial Code article 46(basic commercial transactions) no.19∼no.21, and the rights and obligations etc. of the parties concerned with such transactions were newly regulated in 2010 revised Korean Commercial Code articles 168-2∼168-12. 2. The liability of public entertainment service man for the goods given into his keeping by the guests was changed from no-fault liability to fault liability in 2010 revised Korean Commercial Code article 152 paragraph 1. 3. The association(Korean “SADAN”) in the definition of a company was deleted in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code article 169. 4. The doctrine of the disregard of the corporate entity was adopted clearly for the first time by Korean Supreme Court Judgement 97 DA 21604(Jan. 19, 2001). 5. 2011 Korean Commercial Code adopted executive officer system for the first time. Namely, Korean Commercial Code article 408-2 paragraph 1 enables companies to appoint executive officers by their choices, and those companies which appointed executive officers(will be termed “executive officer company” hereinafter) cannot appoint representative director. Executive officer company is a form of company which divides executive agency(executive officer) and supervisory agency(board of directors). After 1997 Financial Crisis in Korea, legislators made large listed companies with total asset 2 trillion or more Korean won(hereinafter referred to as “large listed companies”) appoint majority of outside (independent) directors and at least three outside directors compulsorily. Since there was no enactment about executive officers separated from supervisory board of directors before 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code, the board of directors failed to perform the role of supervisor. Furthermore, the board of directors with majority of outside directors which participated in decision-making of the company reduced the efficiency of management badly. In other words, participation of board of directors with majority of outside directors in decision-making produced mass “actual executive officers” for the efficiency of management, and those actual executive officers(widely called as “un-registered officers”) were out of laws. To prevent this side effect, the legislators should have enacted executive officers before enhancing board of directors' supervisory role by majority of outside directors. It is expected that companies with those actual executive officers should change (all or part of) them into executive officers(in other words, choose executive officer company) in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code articles 408-2∼408-9. If such large listed companies do not choose executive officer companies voluntarily, it is required that the re-amendment of Korean Commercial Code makes them choose executive officer companies compulsorily for the transparent management by enhancing board of director's supervisory role. 6. Electronic securities(electronic registration of shares etc.) were introduced in 2011 revised Korean Commercial Code article 356-2 etc. 7. Electronic voting system in the shareholders' meeting was introduced in 2009 revised Korean Commercial Code article 368-4. 8. In case that the default of duty to notify has not affected the occurrence of the insured risks, whether the insurer is able to rescind his insurance contract or not has been sincerely discussed. While past Supreme Court Judgement 68 DA 2082(Feb. 18, 1969) etc. decided that the insurer could not rescind his insurance contract, on the contrary of above mentioned judgements recent Korean Supreme Court Judgement 2010 DA 25353(July 22, 2010) decided that the insurer could rescind his insurance contract. 9. A statement of the place where the bill, promissory note or check is issued, is absolutely required by Korean Bills Act article 1 no.7, article 75 no.6, Checks Act article 1 no.5. A bill of exchange, promissory note or check which does not mention the place of its issuance is deemed to have been drawn(made) in the place mentioned beside the name of the drawer(maker) by Korean Bills Act article 2 no.3, article 76 no.3, Checks Act article 2 no.3. In case that there is no statement of the issuance place(including the place mentioned beside the name of the drawer or maker, hereinafter the same shall apply) on the domestic bill, promissory note or check, whether such bill, promissory note or check is valid or invalid has been sincerely discussed. While past Korean Supreme Court Judgement 67 DA 1471(Sep. 5, 1967) etc. decided such bill, promissory note or check was invalid, recent Korean Supreme Court Judgements 95 DA 36466(Apr. 23, 1998) and 99 DA 23383(Aug. 19, 1999) repealed clearly past Judgements by the collegiate judgement of all Justices and decided that such bill, promissory note or check was valid for the protection of the holder of such bill, promissory note or check.

, , , , , , , , ,

Basic Commercial Transactions, Liability of Public Entertainment Service Man, Definition of a Company, Disregard of Corporate Entity, Executive Officer System, Electronic Securities, Electronic Voting, Duty to Notify in Insurance Law, Default of Statement of Issuance Place on Domestic Bill etc., Electronic Fund Transfer