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
The LLC is a very popular closely held business structure in the U.S. because it is recognized as the most favorable business structure to owners as it enables the owners to directly manage the business and yet to enjoy the limited liability privilege and to receive the pass through taxation (single taxation).
In response to this trend in the U.S., Japan has adopted “goudougaishya”, the so-called Japanese LLC into the new Company Act, that has been in force since 2006.
This paper’s aim is to give useful hints in introducing the LLC system into the Korean Commercial code by providing comparison of the Japanese LLC legislation with the U.S. legislation.
This paper does not mention the LLC draft in the revision bill of the Korean Commercial Code because it was already dealt with in another paper of mine.
The big differences between the Japanese legislation and that of the U.S. are as follows: First, the U.S. legislation gives flexibility in management structure in that it enables to choose between direct management by the owners and indirect management by the third party managers. Second, most states of the U.S. have not adopted the capital maintenance principle in the past and have instead taken insolvency or bankruptcy as tests in distribution. Third, in transferring member"s rights, the U.S. LLC distinguishes between financial rights and management rights and allows financial rights alone to be transferred separately. The break-through of the LLC, when compared with the traditional business structures, is that the owners enjoy the limited liability privilege even though they can manage the business themselves.
The traditional concept is that, if the owners directly manage the business themselves as in partnership or “hapmyunghoisa”, then they are personally liable for the business and, if the business is run by the third party managers as in corporation, then they are not personally liable for the business debt and are liable only for the agreed contribution to the business structure.
Further more, I think it is imminent that a proprietorship comes out where the owner is liable up to the business assets contributed and not with personal assets provided there is a public notice of limited liability and a complete separation of business assets and individual assets. In case of one man LLC’s, I think it already serves this function.
In response to this trend in the U.S., Japan has adopted “goudougaishya”, the so-called Japanese LLC into the new Company Act, that has been in force since 2006.
This paper’s aim is to give useful hints in introducing the LLC system into the Korean Commercial code by providing comparison of the Japanese LLC legislation with the U.S. legislation.
This paper does not mention the LLC draft in the revision bill of the Korean Commercial Code because it was already dealt with in another paper of mine.
The big differences between the Japanese legislation and that of the U.S. are as follows: First, the U.S. legislation gives flexibility in management structure in that it enables to choose between direct management by the owners and indirect management by the third party managers. Second, most states of the U.S. have not adopted the capital maintenance principle in the past and have instead taken insolvency or bankruptcy as tests in distribution. Third, in transferring member"s rights, the U.S. LLC distinguishes between financial rights and management rights and allows financial rights alone to be transferred separately. The break-through of the LLC, when compared with the traditional business structures, is that the owners enjoy the limited liability privilege even though they can manage the business themselves.
The traditional concept is that, if the owners directly manage the business themselves as in partnership or “hapmyunghoisa”, then they are personally liable for the business and, if the business is run by the third party managers as in corporation, then they are not personally liable for the business debt and are liable only for the agreed contribution to the business structure.
Further more, I think it is imminent that a proprietorship comes out where the owner is liable up to the business assets contributed and not with personal assets provided there is a public notice of limited liability and a complete separation of business assets and individual assets. In case of one man LLC’s, I think it already serves this function.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 일본의 LLC 입법
Ⅲ. 미국의 LLC 입법
Ⅳ. 양 입법의 비교
Ⅴ. 맺는 말
참고문헌
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (12)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
유한책임회사에 있어서 채권자보호를 위한 규제
원광법학
2014 .01
-
상법상 유한책임회사와 미국 LLC의 비교 연구
경영법률
2016 .01
-
유한책임회사제도에 대한 법이론적 검토
법학연구
2007 .08
-
미국 LLC법상 몇 가지 쟁점에 관한 고찰
法學論文集
2011 .01
-
합자조합과 유한책임회사에 관한 법적 검토
강원법학
2012 .02
-
美國法上 “억압(Oppression)”의 법리와 유한책임회사(Limited Liability Companies) : LLC에 대한 閉鎖會社 소수파주주 보호 법리의 적용 가능성
기업법연구
2007 .12
-
새로운 기업형태의 도입에 관한 상법개정안에 대한 소고
경영법률
2007 .01
-
상법상 유한책임회사제도의 도입과 전망 : 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로
기업법연구
2015 .12
-
새로운 기업형태의 도입에 따른 향후 전망과 과제
비교사법
2011 .06
-
새로운 共同企業 類型의 導入에 관한 硏究 : 有限責任會社를 中心으로
기업법연구
2008 .06
-
미국 LLC, LLP제도의 도입과 세법상 대응
조세법연구
2007 .08
-
벤처중소기업과 상법개정 : 유한책임회사제도의 적용상 문제를 중심으로
법학연구
2012 .11
-
중국 회사법상 유한책임회사 도입의 과제 ― 비교법적 검토 ―
법과 정책연구
2012 .01
-
會社의 組織變更에 대한 課稅 小考
강원법학
2006 .06
-
우리나라 소규모 기업의 이중과세문제와 S 주식회사
기업법연구
2012 .12
-
유한책임회사에 관한 연구 : 회사 종류의 체계화와 관련하여
법학논총
2017 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
공공조합의 법적 성격 및 내부관계에 관한 고찰 : 공법인과 사법인의 구분, 특히 산림조합의 임원선출절차 사례를 두고
김용욱
행정법연구
2016
.02
법인본질론에 관한 소고 : 법인이론에서의 법인의 사회적 실재성과 권리주체성에 대한 구별 및 사단법인과 재단법인에 관한 법인이론의 분리적 검토를 중심으로
박의근
비교사법
2015
.11
개정 법인세법의 합병(合倂) 세제(稅制) 관련 검토
김성균
중앙법학
2010
.09
조세피난처의 이중 구조
이찬근
무역학회지
2013
.11
삼각합병의 구조화 방식과 과세체계
김의석
조세법연구
2013
.04
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001505913