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
It is impossible for some directors always supervise the chief director's job in detail. Different directors have different jobs in the current business practice and business administration has become highly specialized and developed. Therefore directors who have limits in terms of time, information and expertise need to trust in judgments, decisions, advice and reports by other directors, employees and experts. In the US, relative standards of the care level imposed on directors are stipulated in laws and directors have the rights to believe in other directors and employees under the common law. In addition, recently US provincial laws tend to have exclusive terms for director's rights to trust others.
Under the current law in South Korea, the relations between a company and directors should follow the terms of mandate, and the directors are understood to exercise their powers with careful attention as good guardians. This fiduciary duty is a general and abstract term so it is not clear what the duty means. However, the specific standard of the duty is different depending on the scale of companies and purpose of jobs. For bank directors, thoughts and experience as bank directors, and for CEOs of trading companies, expertise and experience as a director for trading jobs can become standard of their duty. Therefore directors in large and small companies can be considered to have their own standards for their duty.
Even within a company, there is big difference in their fiduciary duty between the director who have the rights to run the company and other directors. Therefore, the level of the duty varies between directors who work full time and those who don't, and directors who get paid and focus on the job and those who don't. And thus for some cases, the former directors can be in the breach of the duty but that doesn't apply to thelatter.
This idea might sound like a confusion between each director's job and his duty but that's because each director in different position within the company has different job responsibility. Particularly, regarding the responsibility of directors who work occasionally, retirement pay for the directors who hold an additional post, and supervision duty of directors, it is necessary to review director's responsibilities commensurate with their real job position.
Under the current law in South Korea, the relations between a company and directors should follow the terms of mandate, and the directors are understood to exercise their powers with careful attention as good guardians. This fiduciary duty is a general and abstract term so it is not clear what the duty means. However, the specific standard of the duty is different depending on the scale of companies and purpose of jobs. For bank directors, thoughts and experience as bank directors, and for CEOs of trading companies, expertise and experience as a director for trading jobs can become standard of their duty. Therefore directors in large and small companies can be considered to have their own standards for their duty.
Even within a company, there is big difference in their fiduciary duty between the director who have the rights to run the company and other directors. Therefore, the level of the duty varies between directors who work full time and those who don't, and directors who get paid and focus on the job and those who don't. And thus for some cases, the former directors can be in the breach of the duty but that doesn't apply to thelatter.
This idea might sound like a confusion between each director's job and his duty but that's because each director in different position within the company has different job responsibility. Particularly, regarding the responsibility of directors who work occasionally, retirement pay for the directors who hold an additional post, and supervision duty of directors, it is necessary to review director's responsibilities commensurate with their real job position.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 이사 및 임원의 의무와 책임
Ⅲ. 이사의 신뢰의 보호
Ⅳ. 우리나라에서의 이사의 신뢰원칙의 도입을 위한 제언
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (23)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
판례상 이사의 임무 해태 및 위반에 따른 배임죄 적용에 대한 검토
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
상법상 주식회사 이사의 의무와 미국법상의 충실의무
법학연구
2005 .06
-
비상근이사의 감시의무
기업법연구
2017 .06
-
회사법에서 선관주의의무규정에 관한 고찰
경영법률
2015 .01
-
理事의 責任에 관한 規定의 問題點 檢討
한양법학
2008 .02
-
이사의 내부통제시스템의 구축책임과 현상에 관한 연구
기업법연구
2011 .03
-
명목상 이사의 책임
기업법연구
2009 .06
-
사외이사의 현황과 문제점에 관한 연구
기업법연구
2007 .03
-
사외이사의 책임면제 · 완화론에 대한 비판적 검토
기업법연구
2007 .06
-
社外理事制度의 問題點과 改善方向
기업법연구
2005 .06
-
미국 회사법상 이사의 회사내부정보 수집권에 대한 법적 고찰
기업법연구
2010 .06
-
중국 상업은행 사외이사 독립성에 관한 연구
일감법학
2012 .01
-
理事의 責任制限에 관한 硏究
기업법연구
2004 .09
-
2011년 개정상법상의 이사의 의무와 손해배상책임 : 이사의 책임제한을 중심으로
기업법연구
2012 .03
-
기업가치 결정요인으로서 겸임이사
산업경제연구
2013 .12
-
협동조합의 사외이사제도에 관한 연구
수산경영론집
2003 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015909637