지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Korean Securities Act adopts the disclosure system which enforces the disclosure of information necessary for the investment decision. This act is influenced by the American securities law and is a core means to achieve the purpose of investor protection. When a company violates the duty to disclose and misrepresent the information, investors can ask damages of the company according to the civil law. But in order to ask damages based on the civil law, investors should prove the issuer's negligence and investor's damages. It is a burden on the investor because securities are exchanged impersonally among unspecific people and it is basically different from the fraud cases between individuals. The Securities Act has a special rule on the tort liability of the civil law in the Section 14 or Section 16 to lessen the burden of proof for the investor and this rule is applied to the secondary market disclosure in Section 186-4 and 186-5. The Section 15 on the primary market is applies also to the secondary market. Thus damages are fixed in law and the burden of proof for the loss causation is converted to the defendant.
But in the primary market where securities are issued for the first time and sold to the investors, the information of registration statement and prospectus is the only means for the investment decision. Therefore it is necessary to ask more strict liability to the issuer to strengthen the accuracy of the information. But in the case of the secondary market where the disclosure is done periodically, continually and specially, the character and liability is different from those of the primary market where the disclosure is done just one time. In spite of the difference, Korean Securities Act applies the same rule of liability and measure of damages of the primary market to the secondary market. This is different from the legislative examples of U. S. A. and Japan which adopt the same liability system with Korea and is not a fair legislative attitude. So it is desirable to make a special liability rule for the secondary market.
In this paper, the rules on the damages for the disclosure liability of U. S. A. and Japan are compared with those of Korea and are offered the legislative improvements.
First, the liabilities of issuer and executives should be distinguished and regulated differently.
Second, the damages should be fixed by law only for the liability of the issuer whose illegality is serious. And the different measure of damages from the current damages is offered.
Third, as for the liability of executives, the plaintiff should prove the tort of the defendants and the proportionate liability is offered.
But in the primary market where securities are issued for the first time and sold to the investors, the information of registration statement and prospectus is the only means for the investment decision. Therefore it is necessary to ask more strict liability to the issuer to strengthen the accuracy of the information. But in the case of the secondary market where the disclosure is done periodically, continually and specially, the character and liability is different from those of the primary market where the disclosure is done just one time. In spite of the difference, Korean Securities Act applies the same rule of liability and measure of damages of the primary market to the secondary market. This is different from the legislative examples of U. S. A. and Japan which adopt the same liability system with Korea and is not a fair legislative attitude. So it is desirable to make a special liability rule for the secondary market.
In this paper, the rules on the damages for the disclosure liability of U. S. A. and Japan are compared with those of Korea and are offered the legislative improvements.
First, the liabilities of issuer and executives should be distinguished and regulated differently.
Second, the damages should be fixed by law only for the liability of the issuer whose illegality is serious. And the different measure of damages from the current damages is offered.
Third, as for the liability of executives, the plaintiff should prove the tort of the defendants and the proportionate liability is offered.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 미국의 유통공시책임
Ⅲ. 일본의 유통공시책임
Ⅳ. 우리의 유통공시책임
Ⅴ. 입법론적 검토
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (28)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1997. 9. 12. 선고 96다41991 판결
[1] 증권거래법 제197조 제1항에 의하여 준용되는 구 주식회사의외부감사에관한법률 제17조 제2항, 제6항 전단에 의하면, 감사인이 중요한 사항에 관하여 감사보고서에 기재하지 아니하거나 허위의 기재를 함으로써 제3자에게 손해를 발생하게 한 때에는 그 감사인은 제3자에 대하여 손
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2002다38521 판결
구 증권거래법(2000. 1. 21. 법률 제6176호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제186조의5에 의하여 준용되는 같은 법 제14조의 규정에 의하여 유가증권의 취득자가 주권상장법인 등에 대하여 사업보고서의 허위기재 등으로 인하여 입은 손해의 배상을 청구하는 경우에 유가증권의 취득자는 같은
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국 불법행위법의 최근동향에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법(2009년)의 구성과 주요내용을 중심으로
비교사법
2010 .06
-
컴퓨터 소프트웨어의 오류와 민사책임
기업법연구
2006 .03
-
회계감사인의 책임제한을 위한 시론 : 증권관련집단소송법의 시행에 즈음하여
기업법연구
2006 .06
-
중국 불법행위의 책임귀속원칙에 관한 연구－불법행위책임법(2009년)의 내용을 중심으로－
중국법연구
2010 .01
-
Legislative Perfection of the Application of Law System for Foreign-Related Products Liability in China
과학기술법연구
2009 .01
-
하자담보책임법 개정을 위한 논의와 방향성을 위한 소고 - 독일 개정민법의 내용을 중심으로 -
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
자동차 급발진 추정 사고에 관한 증명책임과 손해배상책임에 관한 연구
동아법학
2018 .02
-
환경오염피해에 대한 배상책임의 구조 : 고의, 과실과 위법성을 중심으로
강원법학
2006 .12
-
Some Considerations on the Civil Liability of the Compensation for Damages of the Air Carrier
법학논총
1987 .12
-
인공지능과 불법행위책임
입법과 정책
2019 .01
-
사회안전과 계약체결상의 과실책임
법학연구
2018 .03
-
증권거래법상의 부실표시에 대한 손해배상책임
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
證券集團訴訟의 發生要因分析과 法的 對應課題
경영법률
2008 .01
-
试论瑕疵担保责任在中国《合同法》上的定位
중국법연구
2013 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015185131