초록 열기/닫기 버튼

회사소송, 특히 주주대표소송에서의 담보제공제도에 관하여는 민사소송법상 소송비용의 담보제도와의 관계에서 이론적으로나 실증적으로 거의 논의되지 않았다. 상법 제403조 제7항, 제176조 제3항·제4항의 담보는 민사소송법상 소송비용의 담보와의 관계에서, 민사소송법 제127조가 규정하고 있는 ʻ다른 법률에 따른 소제기에 관하여 제공되는 담보ʼ에 해당한다. 종래 민사소송법상 소송비용의 담보에 관한 이해의 부족으로 민사소송법상 담보제도와의 유기적 관련 하에 주주대표소송에서의 담보제공제도를 제대로 파악하지 못한 채 논의가 되었다. 민사소송법상 소송비용의 담보제공은 2010. 7. 23. 민사소송법 개정시 상당한 변화를 겪게 되었다. 이러한 개정을 통하여 원고가 소장·준비서면, 그 밖의 소송기록에 의하여 청구가 이유 없음이 명백한 때에도 담보제공제도가 적용되게 되었으며(민사소송법 제117조 제1항), 당사자의 신청이 없이도 법원이 직권으로 원고에게 소송비용에 대한 담보를 제공하도록 명할 수 있게 되었다(민사소송법 제117조 제2항). 따라서 이러한 민사소송법상 담보제도의 확대적용에 따라 주주대표소송에서의 담보제공제도와의 차이 및 체계적 운용의 필요성에 관한 인식이 이론상으로나 소송실무상으로 중요하게 되었다. 특히 주주대표소송의 경우 상법상 담보제공제도에서의 ʻ악의ʼ에 관한 개념의 정립에서 민사소송법상 담보제공제도에서의 ʻ청구이유 없음의 명백성ʼ에 관한 개념을 충분히 반영함으로써 주주권의 남용의 문제 등과 관련하여 효율적으로 담보제공제도가 운용되도록 하여야 한다. 나아가 대법원은 회사소송 등에서의 담보제공에서 담보액에 관한 기준을 명확히 정하는 예규를 제정하여 소송당사자의 예측가능성을 제고할 수 있어야 한다.


Much discussions and studies on the posting of security when filing the corporate litigation, especially the derivative suit, have yet to be expected in Korea in terms of both the procedural issues in practice and the systemʼs functions. In the shareholder derivative suit the posting of security against the possible award of attorneyʼs fees and costs will be expected to hopefully dissuade minority shareholders from filing the potential abusive derivative suits with questionable merit like the strike suits or the nuisance suit brought for settlement value. The posting of security as a condition to maintaining a derivative action prescribed in the Commercial Act Article 403(7) by mutatis mutandis of the Article 176(3),(4) is equivalent to that of the lawsuit pursuant to the other Acts stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act Article 127. Heretofore the posing of security in the derivative suit has not been systematically and structurally understood in connection with the that of the civil procedural law due to the rarity of the interdisciplinary study on the general civil procedural security posting system. Some radical change has been gone through since the amendment of the security posting system in the Civil Procedure Act as of July 23, 2010. In addition to the traditional requirement of no domicile, office or business place in Korea on the part of the plaintiff, the court shall order the plaintiff to post security on the defendantʼs motion or ex officio(by its own motion) where it is recognized that furnishing security for the costs of the lawsuits is necessary because it is obvious that the claim is groundless based on the complaints, briefs, or the other records on lawsuit [Civil Procedure Act Article 117(1),(2)]. Therefore by virtue of the expanding application of the civil procedural posting system, there needs more accurate theoretical and practical recognitions on the difference of the security posting systems between the Commercial Act and the Civil Procedure Act in furtherance of managing the efficient and effective security posting system in the derivative suit. Especially the concept of ʻmalicious intentʼ in the derivative suit has been fully established in relation to or in the context of the obviousness of groundlessness of the claim in the general civil litigation in the management of furnishing security system, while taking into account the deterrent or chilling effect on the abusiveness of the striking derivative suit as well as encouraging effect on the furtherance of the legitimate derivative suit. The courts have wide discretion over whether to order or to what extent the plaintiff shareholders to post security. The Supreme Court shall be advised to establish the rule aimed at clearly providing the standardized amount of relevant security for the plaintiff shareholder to post in the course of initiating the derivative suit when a defendant can reasonably prove that a plaintiff brought a derivative suit with malicious intent, in order to ensure the foreseeability of the parties.