NDSL 1,516 Link page에서 [원문보기] 버튼을 클릭하세요.
[국내논문]
[해외논문]
Associate Professor, Law School of Chonbuk National UniversityThere are four types of solutions for conflicts in Chinese foreign-investedcompanies. Consultation, mediation, arbitration and litigations. Since China’sreform and opening up, China has enacted the corporation law due to thenecessity of corporate-related system as an economic unit. In accordance with thelegislation, civil and commercial litigations in China has been increasing gradually. China’s state-owned enterprises has reformed into corporations which appliesto the civil law and the commercial law, contrast to the previous state-ownedenterprises which applied to the administrative law and the economic law. Corporations can be divided into two types, local-invested and foreign-investedcompanies. Foreign-invested company is that foreign investors foundindependently or by joint investment in China. There are few types offoreign-invested companies which are joint stocks, joint venture, foreign-fundedcompany, foreign-invested limited company, foreign-invested holding company. Corporate litigations in China apply to the Civil procedure code and the specialregulation for the civil action liaisons. It also includes the characteristics of both thesubstantial law and the adjective law, due to the principle of unity of civil cases. Especially, the corporation law is applied to lawsuits in People’s court, and theSupreme people’s court’s judicial interpretation is considered in verdicts. China’s classifies the legal relations in corporations into two types of internaland external conflicts. Internal conflicts are related to its organization and internal juristic relations and the external conflicts are about productions andadministration matters. This thesis is about the representative litigation types by internal conflicts of theChinese foreign-invested companies, and the effective countermeasures andprecautions for corporate litigations of foreign-invested companies in China.
[국내논문]
[해외논문]
Since the modern judicial system was brought in Korea, one century and a decade have gone by, and then the electronic filing system (EFS) was introduced, which is probably one of the most significant changes in the judicial environment. Some say there is no significant symbiosis between the EFS and a firm’s management. However, such a na�ve comment is an easygoing way of thinking and mishandling the case. If you are a person who have same point of view, I sincerely advise you to correct your view. Like shown in the U.S. case, the adoption of EFS requires enterprises to keep up with the rapid change of their management system. Long and short term agendas also keep following the shifted managerial environment under the revision of the Rule.Any effort to chronicle all of the ramifications and impacts of the adoption of EFS to replace the paper filing systems is considerably beyond the scope of this study and would require foresight not possessed by the authors. However, there are some important specific implications that do not require inordinate speculation. This article attempts to briefly describe the more obvious impacts that firms, lawyers, and the managements can expect through the migration to EFS.Courts have created paper-based systems, which attempt to organize and store those billions of documents, as well as the huge number of documents generated by the courts themselves. In addition to creating paper-based filing systems to store documents, court staffs also manually extract and enter certain information from these filings for use in the court’s internal Case Management Systems (CMS).When EFS is fully implemented, as a matter of course, there will be no paper-based record systems. Information in electronic record systems will be collected, recorded, searched, and distributed electronically. Assuming parties of those records are authorized to have access, a nearly unlimited number of people and firms, if they have some interest with pending case and only after they got court allowance, can have simultaneous access to the electronic records. Because such records will not be moved from place to place, or person to person, it is less likely to be misfiled. They can be available at all hours of the day, regardless of whether the court is open or closed. Since the information from those records will be automatically served and distributed electronically to litigants and receiving courts, the potential for errors is also greatly reduced.Moreover, no longer do information seekers (i.e., litigant, eyewitness, attorney, government agents, and researchers) need to manually search through file drawers or racks for binders to locate information in paper records. Instead, the searching can be done electronically and remotely through viewer in any place. To give some idea of the potential differences in efficiency, consider the speed of the modern electronic search engines used on the Internet.For court-related documents alone, the efficiency of immediately linking to, excerpting, or quoting from pleadings and court materials could more than streamline the practice of law. A nearly unlimited number of searchers could simultaneously retrieve such information around the clock. There is no need to re-file because the file is never moved. Those thoughts, and the logical next steps, begin to provide some idea of why universally mandated EFS is probably inevitable.I am sure of the smooth planting of the electronic discovery into Korean law in a short time after adopting the EFS. Even if it seems that currently the usage of EFS has a repercussion on the individual business association, the practice using EFS will make a soft landing in the legal field. However, the corporation would be dropped in the march of the age of limitless global competition, if the entities start to cross the bridge when the epochal changes come to it. I therefore insist that the company, regardless of its size, must note that U.S. firm’s shipwreck...
[국내 학위논문]
본 연구에서는 특허침해소송 소식에 관한 뉴스가 대중에게 전해질 경우에 일반인이 각 기업에 대해 인식하고 있던 기업이미지(전문이미지, 신뢰이미지)의 변화가 어떻게 다르게 나타나는지 실험연구를 통해 검증하였다. 연구결과, ‘전문이미지’는 원고기업과 피고기업이 모두 부정적인 영향을 받는데 비해, ‘신뢰이미지’는 피고기업만 부정적인 영향을 받는다는 것을 확인할 수 있었으며, 특허침해소송에 관한 뉴스기사에 언급되지 않은 동종분야기업의 ‘전문이미지’와 ‘신뢰이미지’에서는 차이가 나타나지 않는다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 이와 함께, 기업이미지 변화가 나타난 원고기업과 피고기업 중, 어떤 기업의 기업이미지가 더 부정적으로 변화하였는지 분석한 결과, ‘전문이미지’는 ‘특허침해소송 발생단계’에서만, ‘신뢰이미지’는 ‘특허침해소송 발생단계’와 ‘특허침해소송 종결단계’ 모두에서, 피고기업이 원고기업에 비해 더 부정적인 영향을 받는다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 결과적으로, 기업이미지 관점에서 볼 때, 특허침해소송은 “원고기업과 피고기업 모두 패자”가 되는 게임으로 볼 수 있었고, “기업입장에서 특허침해소송은 우선 피하는 것이 좋고, 피할 수 없다면 원고입장에 서는 것이 피고입장에 서는 것보다 유리하다”는 특허경영전략을 제시할 수 있었으며, “원고입장에 선 후에는, ‘특허침해소송 종결단계’에서보다 ‘특허침해소송 발생단계’에서, (피고기업에 비해) 원고기업에게 유리한 점이 더 많이 작용한다”는 시사점도 제시해 볼 수 있었다.
[국내논문]
최근 들어 미국과 한국 등에서 연달아 도입되고 있는 전자 소송시스템은 급격하게 기업경영환경을 변화시키고 있으며, 전자적으로 자료를 관리해야 하는 기업의 경우 상당한 영향을 받을 것으로 예상된다. 미국의 경우 2006년부터 민사소송에 전자소송시스템을 도입하였으며, 한국의 경우 소송 문서제출부담의 감소, 소송비용의 절감, 소송절차의 신속성, 투명성제고 등을 목적으로 2011년 5월부터 전자민사소송시스템을 운영하였는데 이에 대한 대비는 거의 이루어지지 않고 있다. 전자소송시스템의 도입이라는 것은 사법환경을 획기적으로 변화시키는 것이므로, 이 시스템의 도입이 기업의 경영환경에 미치는 영향을 면밀히 분석하고 소송시스템의 변화에 따른 기업 경영환경의 변화를 면밀히 주목해야 할 필요성이 있다.
[국내 학위논문]
주주는 회사 성립의 기초이며 회사의 가장 주요한 이해관계인으로서 주주 이익을 보호하는 것은 회사법의 기본과제이다. 80년 전 미국 변호사 겸 법학자인 Adolf A. Berle와 경제학자인 Gardiner C. Means가 “소유와 경영 분리”에 관한 이론을 발표한 이래 기업지배구조(corporate governance)의 이론적 논쟁은 나날이 치열해지고 있다. 기업지배구조는 다양하게 정의되고 이해될 수 있으나 일반적으로 기업의 경영과 통제에 관한 시스템으로 기업경영에서 주주와 경영진 및 기타 이해집단 간의 이해관계를 조정하고 규율하는 제도적 장치와 운영 체제라 할 수 있다. 이는 소유와 경영이 분리된 주식회사의 대리인 문제, 즉 소유자인 주주를 대리하는 경영진을 제어할 수 있는 체제를 의미하게 된다. 
 세계 각국에서는 시장경제의 발전과 함께 기업 및 상거래의 국제화가 고도화됨에 따라 기업지배구조의 중요성이 인식되고 이와 관련된 각종 제도가 마련되고 정착되기 시작하였다. 그러나 국가마다 경제, 사회적 배경이 상이하다 보니 기업지배구조 개선의 주안점도 다르다. 중국 대부분 기업에는 지배주주가 존재하는데, 그 지배주주가 소수주주의 이익을 침해하여 사적 이익을 추구하려는 동기를 어떤 방식으로 통제할지가 중국 기업지배구조에 관한 논의의 핵심이다. 따라서 이사가 지배주주의 이익을 대변하여 위법행위를 하면 소수주주는 그 이사의 법적 책임을 추궁할 수 있으므로 주주대표소송은 회사와 소수주주의 이익을 보호할 수 있는 효율적인 견제장치이다.
 주주대표소송은 이사의 위법한 업무수행이 회사의 이익을 침해하였는데도 회사가 손해를 가한 이사에 대해 책임추궁을 게을리 할 경우에 주주가 회사의 이사에 대한 손해배상청구권을 행사하기 위하여 제기하는 소송을 의미한다. 이는 소유와 경영이 분리된 주식회사 제도가 발전하면서 소수주주가 이사의 위법행위를 견제하는 중요한 수단이 되었다. 통상적으로 이사의 회사에 대한 위법행위로 인한 손해에 대하여 손해배상청구는 피해자인 회사 스스로 해야 한다. 그러나 회사를 대표하는 대표이사 등 대표기관은 스스로 위법행위를 한 장본인이거나 다른 이사의 불법행위를 묵인ㆍ방조하였거나 기타 특별한 관계로 인하여 이들이 현실적으로 회사를 대표하여 손해배상청구를 하는 것을 기대하기 어려운 경우가 많다. 이에 주주가 자신의 간접이익을 보호하기 위하여 회사를 대신하여 소송을 제기할 수 있도록 한 것이다. 
 주주대표소송은 원래 영국의 형평법에서 유래한 제도이지만 미국에서 가장 널리 이용되고 있다. 일본은 1950년대, 한국은 1962년 상법 제정 시에 주주대표소송을 도입하였다.
 중국은 2005년 회사법 개정으로 이사의 신인의무에 관한 규정을 두고 주주대표소송제도를 도입하였으며, 다섯 차례의 회사법, 사법해석 및 사법(司法) 실천을 통해 주주대표소송제도를 지속적으로 정비하고 있다. 그러나 주주대표소송에 관한 실증적 연구 결과에 의하면, 중국 주주대표소송은 원고의 제소 요건, 피고의 범위, 회사의 소송상 지위, 소송고지 등에 관한 규정이 명확하지 않아 법원 판결의 통일성과 일관성이 떨어지는 등 그 기대하는 효과가 충분히 발휘되지 못하고 있다. 
 주주대표소송은 기업지배구조에서 손해회복기능과 위법행위 억제기능을 발휘하는 동시에 회사의 대리 문제를 해결하는 기능도 한다. 세계 다른 나라와 마찬가지로 중국 회사들도 기업지배구조 개선의 필요성에 직면해 있다. 
 이 논문에서는 다른 나라의 주주대표소송 제도를 고찰함과 아울러 중국 주주대표소송의 문제점을 지적하고 그 제도적 발전을 위한 시사점을 제시하는 것을 목표로 하고 있다.
[해외논문]
In 2010, companies were cast in the first trial of KIKO. When we compare Korean with India case, this is an unexpected outcome and irrational conclusion. KIKO has fundamental defects in structure. First, Selling Banks deceived joined companies saying that I will not receive any price. It means Zero-Cost. But they received sales costs without any explanations, inflate striking price of option and increase the term to 2-3 years injustice.KIKO is a sort of compound or exotic option. In principle currency options use to minimize the floating exchange rate in exporting companies and individuals. But KIKO was not working to do this, would rather damaged to the buyer. Furthermore buyer can not perceived this faculties in making contract. Not to notify faculties is negligence of the seller, a bank with which buyer has an account. Most of complex derivatives like KIKO have many problems, and so to have too much portion of derivatives brings about bad results. The fact that KIKO is a void contract leads to the liability of seller bank.
[국내논문]
Institutional investors who have the great number of securities have some characteristics. Because of the fiduciary duty to their beneficiaries, they try to improve the corporate monitering and performance. Consequently, institutional investors tend to expand their involvement in corporation. Sometimes they participate in voting contest or want to be appointed of the lead plaintiff in securities class action. Recently, institutional shareholder activism is the important issues in corporate governance While The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 has provided institutional investors with the initiative of the securities class actions in the United States of America, they may be reluctant to accept the role of lead plaintiff. Institutional investors would not take part in litigation if they don"t have the confidence about the merits of a securities claim. When institutional investors determine whether accepting lead plaintiff, they must consider how their responsibilities as ERISA fiduciaries impact their decision whether or not to litigate in a securities class action. But, institutional investors may find themselves subject to a fiduciary obligation under ERISA to take an active role where their involvement is likely to provide positive results for their beneficiaries. When acting as lead plaintiff, institutional investors usually have the greatest financial stake in the plaintiff class, therefore, more effective prosecution and settlement of meritorious claims will provide direct financial benefits to institutional investors and their beneficiaries. Such involvement yields optimal results for institutional investors directly, and provides a systemic benefit in securing the best representation of the plaintiff class, and ensures that the litigation strategy employed in such actions will be best for all involved in the long-term.
[국내 학위논문]
[국내논문]
[국내논문]
On August 23, 2005, Sovereign Asset Management Ltd., the Dubai-based private investment fund, sold off its entire stocks in LG Group to incur a loss of over 50 billion won, and left for the Korean securities market. Despite the loss, Sovereign Asset Management Ltd. gained an net profit of 850 billion won since it gained an overall profit of over 900 billion won from recent stock sales in SK Corporation. Actually, before the Korean economic crisis in 1997, sovereign Asset Management Ltd. could not buy the stocks of domestic companies such as SK Corp. and LG Group in the Korean securities market. After the Economic crisis, the Korean government took a series of structural reform measures to improve the standard of corporate governance and to enhance corporate management, but also widely opened the financial market to foreign countries abolishing or amending some restrictions on foreign investments and introducing new securities market systems. In particular, the opening of financial market caused confusion in the Korean financial market, which had not had competitive power under the governmental governing system. Moreover, we recently faced with the "Sovereign Case," which the foreign investment fund acquired the very much profits from the domestic companies and dumped the domestic companies when the foreign investment fund decided that there were no more benefits of the domestic companies. However, after the economic crisis, we have experienced many changes. Some of the changes are very much helpful for the Korean financial market, but some are not helpful, or even painful for the Korean financial market from the perspective of the domestic companies. One example of painful changes is increasing litigations against the domestic enterprises. Since the enterprise litigations may cause the loss of the managemental efficiency, it may also bring about shrivelling of the Korean financial market. Therefore, this review examines the enterprise risks and proposes some counter measures against the enterprise litigation risks in order to improve the enterprise managemental circumstances.
[국내논문]
정보거버넌스는 정보 컴플라이언스 요건을 충족시키고, 정보 가치를 극대화하는 한편 정보 위험을 통제하기 위한 통합적 접근법이다. 기업정보관리에서는 정보가 가진 활용가치뿐 아니라 보유에 따른 위험을 함께 고려해야 한다. 특히 해외 시장에 진출한 기업들이 소송과 전자증거개시에 대비하려면 건실한 기록정보관리에 토대를 둔 정보거버넌스의 도입이 시급하다. 이 연구는 미국 법조계에 영향력을 가진 세도나 컨퍼런스의 정보거버넌스 원칙을 실천적 관점에서 분석하여 기업의 정보거버넌스 구축방안을 제시하기 위한 것이다. 이 원칙을 실무에 적용할 수 있는 통제 기준으로 재구성한 후 이러한 통제 기준을 정보거버넌스의 업무 영역별로 배치하고 이를 해석함으로써 정보거버넌스의 구축과 운영상의 시사점을 제시하였다.
[국내논문]
본 논문에서는 미국의 전자증거개시(E-Discovery) 제도의 확산에 따라 국내 도입에 대비하여 표준화 된 업무 수행 절차 확립을 위해 선행 연구가 이루어지고 있는 EDRM(Electronic Discovery Reference Model) 및 The Sedona Conference 프로젝트에 대한 분석을 바탕으로 일반화 된 E-Discovery 프로세스와 세부 절차 별 필수 업무 사항들을 제시한다. 또한 이런 절차들이 실제 소송에 활용됨에 있어서 근본적으로 내포하고 있는 시간과 비용 문제를 해결하기 위한 대체 기술로써 기계 학습, 오픈 소스 형태의 정보 검색 라이브러리, Hadoop 기반의 대용량 데이터 분산 처리 기법 등을 소개하고, E-Discovery 프로세스 상에서의 활용 방안을 제시하여, 관련 서비스 및 솔루션을 개발하고자 하는 벤더들에게 유용한 정보를 제공한다. 이는 또한 제도적 변화에 발맞추어 업무 시스템을 재정비하고자 하는 기업들로 하여금 소송에 보다 효과적으로 대처할 수 있도록 한다.
[국내논문]
[해외논문]
Nowadays Several Countries like USA and Republic of Korea introduced Electronic Litigation System in the civil sector, and this introduction of electronic system affected several changes dramatically management environments of many firms. Especially in Republic of Korea this electronic litigation system is introduced by the purpose such as decrease paper document, cost down of litigation and the transparence. but till now most enterprises don't prepare about electronic litigation.This introduction of electronic litigation system changes the circumstance of the law environment, firms have to prepare solutions about changes of litigation systems and changes of firma management systems.Key Words :
[해외논문]
I think that our country is not interested in the law problem of the combined corporation. But by the 2011 statistical data, the investigation numbers of the corporation combination in our country are about 543 cases and the sum total come up to 140.2trillion. Also, though there are not in the corporate law, the types of the combination corporation are 4 types in the monopoly regulations and fair trade law such as establishment of joint venture corporation, merger & acquisition, additional office and business transfer.That ration of the each type is establishment of joint venture corporation 20.6%, merger & acquisition 19.7%, additional office 12,5%, business transfer 8.8%.Notwithstanding the these cases of the combnation corporation are many, we don’t discussed on the solution methods in the corporation law. Only, in the monopoly regulations and fair trade law, there are several discussion on the legal regulation. But these solution methods can not solve the related problems in the corporation law of the combination corporation. Especially, I will examine about the related problem of the derivative suit.As the totla system, first, I will inspect on the general contents of the combination corporation. Next,by the formation order of the combination corporation, I will think about the related case and solving methods.In conclusion, I will reach on the following solving method. First, I think about the studying on the change of interpretation method in the existing corporation law that consider the combination corporation problem. Second, as the certain method, we need to regulate the related law clauses that related the combined corporation, namely the parent-subsidiary corporation relation. if we are choose the latter method,I think that is ideal method.
[국내논문]
창의적 아이디어를 지식으로 변환하고 이를 활용하여 부를 축적하는 창조경제의 구현은 세계적 화두이자 우리나라의 핵심국정목표이다. 우리나라는 지식재산의 창출역량은 높은 수준에 다다랐으나 그 지식재산의 활용/관리 역량은 부족하며 특히 국경 없는 전쟁이라 불리는 지식재산분쟁에 대한 체계적 대응과 전략적 관리 역량은 개별 기업 차원에서도 그리고 국가 관리시스템 차원에서도 부족한 것으로 평가되어 이 부분에 대한 역량강화가 요구된다. 본 연구는 지식재산분쟁에 대한 전략적 관리 역량강화를 위해 무엇이 필요한지를 생각해 보는 계기를 마련하기 위해 ICT 융합의 실용특허인 스마트폰/태블릿PC를 중심으로 우리나라의 삼성과 미국의 애플 간에 9개국에 걸쳐 동시다발적으로 진행 중인 글로벌 지식재산소송을 분석하였다. 특히 소송결과에 따른 구제수단 중 즉각적인 시장봉쇄효과가 있고 개별 기업뿐만 아니라 산업의 지형도와 국가경쟁력에 직접적 영향을 미칠 수 있는 침해금지청구(제품의 판매금지명령)소송에 대해서 살펴보았다. 본 연구는 우리나라 기업과 글로벌 지식재산 분쟁이 가장 빈번한 미국에서의 소송을 중심으로 하였다. 본 연구는 애플이 제기한 영구적 침해금지청구소송에 관한 미국의 1심 판결문을 중심으로 미국에서 침해금지청구가 인용되기 위한 요건을 분석하고, 이를 바탕으로 그에 관한 법률적 쟁점이 기업 전략적 측면에서는 어떠한 시사점을 가지는지를 생각해보고자 하였다. 이 글은 아직 소송이 진행 중인 1심의 판결 결과에 대한 분석이고 미국의 소송을 중심으로 법률적 쟁점과 기술경영전략적 쟁점을 연결할 수 있는 연결고리를 찾는 것에 중점을 두고 있다는 점에서 향후 여러 국가를 비교한 종합적 분석이 요구되는 한계가 있다. 그러나 본 연구가 창조경제시대는 기술경영의 시대에서 한 단계 진화하여 기술경영과 법률경영을 하나로 융합하는 기업의 역량과 자국 기업을 위해 최적의 게임의 룰을 제공하는 국가의 역량이 어느 때보다 중요하다는 점을 강조한다는 점에서 그 의의를 찾을 수 있기를 기대한다.
[해외논문]
Regarding shareholder’s derivative suit in China, it has only one principle provision in Chinese Corporate Act. Because enterprise with foreign investment has unique characters such as it has a small number of shareholders with totally deferent business background and culture, and most of shareholders are legal entity, and once a shareholder files derivative suit against a director it will become conflict among shareholders. Considering the above facts it is very difficult to regulate derivative suit on the enterprise with foreign investment only with one principle provision. Because of these reasons there are several problems on derivative suit on the enterprise with foreign investment such as the issues of proper plaintiff, demand on board, jurisdiction, delivery and execution of judgment. And also another problem is due to lack of specific guideline of director’s responsibility, the director dispatched by foreign investor is threatened by derivative suit and can not aggressively manage the company. In order to solve these problems the most urgent task is to prepare specific procedure for derivative suit. As most of the arguments on derivative suit are arising from vacancy of specific regulations, if government prepares detailed procedure as soon as possible, it will help to decrease unnecessary dispute and increase social benefit. the second task is to prepare various methods for preventing abuse of derivative suit. For example it is necessary to make guideline clarifying the responsibility of director and strictly applying the overseas travel ban in civil suit in order not to suffer a disadvantage on the foreign director or shareholder. As a third task, delivery and execution of judgement of derivative suit on the enterprise with foreign investment are difficult and complicated due to private international law. even though delivery takes long time, it is necessary to take next legal procedure after strictly confirming receipt of lawsuit documents by the defendant. And government and scholars of Korea and China shall make an effort to set up the system to approve executive force to Chinese judgement for derivative suit with the condition that it does not has fatal defect. As stated above, it is very important to prepare the methods for foreign investor not to have a disadvantage on derivative suit, but what is the most important is foreign director, auditor and shareholder shall gain a better understanding of Chinese law and article of corporation, and make a effort to strictly keep them.
[국내논문]
특허 소송은 혁신 혹은 지적 재산권의 보호 수단으로서 알려져 있다. 그러나 특허 시장이 증대됨에 따라 경쟁사의 진입을 방해하기 위한 전략적 수단으로 특허 소송의 활용 범위가 증대되었다. 특허 소송에 연루될 가능성은 기업이 가지고 있는 특허의 양질이 증대할수록 높아진다고 밝혀져 왔다. 그러므로 혁신을 추구하는 기업의 입장에서는 특허 소송에 연루될 가능성을 최대한 낮출 수 있는 방안이 필요하다. 이에 본 연구는 인쇄 전자 산업 내 기업의 과거 제휴 활동이 특허품질과 특허 소송의 관계에 미칠 수 있는 영향력에 대해 분석하였다. 특허 품질과 특허 소송의 관계에 대한 기존 연구결과를 재 입증함과 더불어 피고인 관점의 특허 소송에 대한 연구를 진행하여 기업의 제휴 활동이 특허 소송을 낮춘다는 결과를 도출하였다. 예컨대, 평균치의 특허를 지닌 기업에 대해 과거 제휴 활동의 유무가 연간 특허 소송률을 약 33% 낮추는 것을 실증적으로 입증하였다. 본 연구가 특허 소송과 전략적 제휴에 관한 기존 문헌에 기여하는 바는 다음과 같다. 기업의 과거 전략적 제휴가 평판으로서의 역할을 하여 특허 소송을 감소시킴을 확인함으로써 기존 전략적 제휴 관련 문헌에 기여한다. 또한, 특허 품질이 특허 소송에 미치는 영향력에 대한 새로운 조절 변수를 밝혀냄으로써 기존 특허 소송 관련 문헌에 기여한다. 더불어, 본 연구는 특허 소송을 피고인 관점에서 분석한 최초의 연구라는 점에서 매우 의미가 있다.
[해외논문]
This study examines the association between litigation risk of client firms and audit fees. Prior studies report that audit risks borne by auditor are reflected in determining audit fees. They report that as audit risk increases, audit fee increases. The studies measure audit risk mostly by financial variables collected from financial statements, such as profitability (for instance, loss indicator variable, return on assets, or return on equity), solvency (for instance, leverage ratio or current ratio), and audit opinion (for instance, non-clean opinion or going-concern uncertainty opinion). There are many examples of such studies that use the variables mentioned above. Choi et al. (2008) examines the association between country-level auditors' legal liability and audit fees, in addition to firm-level risk variables, such as loss indicator variable, return on assets, and leverage ratio. They show that audit fee monotonically increases as country-level as well as firm-level legal liability measures increase. Seetharaman et al. (2002) also show that U.K. firms cross-listed in the U.S. pay higher audit fees than non-cross-listed firms after controlling for firm-level financial risks because cross-listing in the U. S. causes higher legal liability for auditors. Similarly, Venkataraman et al. (2008) report that initial public offering firms pay higher audit fees due to greater litigation risk, compared with existing listed-firms. This is because initial public offering firms are likely to be related to higher risks.Other than financial variables measured from financial statements, Lee et al. (2007) use directors and officers liability insurance premiums for the client firms to measure the audit risk. Similar in spirit, Pratt and Stice (1994) survey auditors for perceived audit risk of client firms. Both Lee et al. (2007) and Pratt and Stice (1994) use the measured audit risk to examine if the risk is reflected in setting audit fees.Unlike prior studies, this study uses a different and more direct measure of audit risk, the litigation risk of client firms. The litigation risk is measured by four different variables: (1) the existence of litigation for the client firms, (2) the number of litigation cases for the client firms, (3) the existence of record on the litigation in the audit report for the client firms, and (4) the amount of damage claims for the auditor for the litigation. As a result, we examine the association between audit fees and four risk measures. These four measures are not examined in prior studies. Although a prior study of Palmrose(1988) examines the association between number of litigation against auditors and audit fees, it is the study on the number of litigation against auditors, not against client firms. This study focuses on the litigation against client firms, which is different from the focus of prior studies. This is a direct measure of audit risk, because the results of the litigation greatly influence on the financial status of the firms. However, the financial variables measured from financial statements do not exactly reflect such risks. If a firm is under litigation as a defendant (measure 1), the audit risk is expected to be greate than the risk for the firms not under litigation. Second, among firms under litigation, if the number of litigation cases increases (measure 2), it is expected that the risk is greater. Third, an auditor would record the existence of the litigation only if he judges that the litigation can cause serious damage to the client firms. Thus, the existence of litigation case for which auditor records it in the audit report (measure 3) can be used to measure the audit risk. Finally, if the amount of damage claims against the auditors is greater, the result of one court case can greatly influence the financial status of a client firm. Thus, the amount (measure 4) can be used as a proxy for the audit risk. Because a firm is under litigation by suing another party (firm, individual, or governmental authorities), we use an alternative measure by calculating the net amount of damage claims (damage claims for the defendant minus damage claims as a plaintiff).For empirical analyses, we collect 2,821 firm-year observations from the companies listed in Korean Stock Exchange over the period of year 2002 to 2007. Among them, about 36.5 percent of firms (average 173 firms per year) are under litigation and the frequency of litigation increases as time passes. It may reflect the trend of increasing audit risk related to the passage of Korean version of Sarbanes-Oxley Act (so called K-SOX) in year 2002 and Class-Action Litigation Act in year 2003 and 2004. In addition, average of 146 firms have number of litigation data per year and each firm under litigation have average 9 ongoing litigation. The amount of damage claims against a client firm is 49,256,000 Korean won.Both univariate and multivariate results support the predictions. For the firms under litigation pay significantly higher audit fees than other firms not under litigation, even after controlling for other 16 variables that are reported to be related to audit fees in prior studies. These other variables represents the extent, complexity, and financial risks of audit service as well as industry and year dummies. The audit fee premiums are greater when the existence of litigation is written on audit report as a special items. Both the number of litigation and amount of damage claims against the auditors are reflected in audit fee when the regression analyses are performed with only firms that are under litigation. Various sensitivity analyses results also support the findings.Because Lee et al. (2007) uses directors and officers liability insurance premiums to measure for audit risk, this study include both client firms' litigation-related variables and the insurance premiums in the same regression model and examines if the results hold. This study consistently finds that the litigation-related variables are significantly associated with audit fees, even though the insurance premiums are insignificant or only marginally significant. The results imply that the litigation-related variables reflect the audit risk better than directors and officers liability insurance premiums. In addition, the information on premiums are available only for limited number of companies, which restricts the generalizability of the findings, compared with that of this study.In summary, the empirical findings support that auditor reflects audit risk related to the litigation of client firms in setting audit fees. Based on this finding, future studies, regulators and other information users should use the information on the litigation in evaluating client risk.
[해외논문]
[국내논문]
[해외논문]
[해외논문]
In order to prepare for the introduction of the E-Discovery system from the United States and to cope with some causable changes of legal systems, we propose a general E-Discovery process and essential tasks of the each phase. The proposed process model is designed by the analysis of well-known projects such as EDRM, The Sedona Conference, which are advanced research for the standardization of E-Discovery task procedures and for the supply of guidelines to hands-on workers. In addition, Machine Learning Algorithms, Open-source libraries for the Information Retrieval and Distributed Processing technologies based on the Hadoop for big data are introduced and its application methods on the E-Discovery work scenario are proposed. All this information will be useful to vendors or people willing to develop the E-Discovery service solution. Also, it is very helpful to company owners willing to rebuild their business process and it enables people who are about to face a major lawsuit to handle a situation effectively.
[국내논문]
이 연구는 언론계에서 최근 활발해진 공인에 대한 논의에 근거하여 국내에서 발생한 기업의 언론 소송 판례 분석을 통해 법원이 기업과 관련하여 공익성 판단의 요건으로서의 공인 개념을 어떻게 인식하고 있는가를 살펴보는 시론적 탐색이다. 판례 분석 결과 미국의 경우와는 다르게 일반 기업 관련 언론 소송에서 법원은 언론사인 경우를 제외하고는 기업의 공적 기능을 논하거나 기업이라는 원고의 신분적 특성을 고려하지 않고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 기업으로서의 언론에 있어서는 공익성, 진실성(상당성)에 대한 고려와 함께 언론사라는 기업의 특성과 사회적 영향력, 사회적 지위를 고려하여 상호 비판의 범위를 폭넓게 수인해야 한다는 점을 적시하고 있다. 이와 같이 진실성과 함께 공익성에 대한 논의가 중요한 판단근거로 작용한다는 점, 언론사에 한정된 것이긴 하지만 기업의 사회적 지위와 신분, 특성이 고려된다는 것은 향후 기업에 공인 개념이 적용될 여지가 있다는 점을 반증하는 것이라고 하겠다. 비록 모든 기업에 일률적으로 적용될 수 있는 것은 아니나 미국의 경우와 달리 한국 언론기업의 판례에서 볼 수 있듯 기업은 ‘그 활동상황을 사회에 알릴 필요가 있고’, ‘다수에 대한 영향력도 있으며’ ‘국가ㆍ사회적 영향력’도 있다 할 것이므로 공익성 판단의 요인으로서의 공적 존재에 대한 인식이 향후 일정부분 고려될 가능성이 있는 것으로 보인다.
[해외논문]
The overstating account is that the asset-, profit-, capital-accounts are overestimated and the debt-, loss-accounts are underestimated. Its methods are overstating the sales and goods in store, overstating the current term’s net profit and understating or omitting the debt or loss, handling the accounting division, interrupting the outside auditing. The overstating account may cause the corporate lawsuits as prescribed in the Security-Related Procedure Act. I have focussed here on the indemnifying responsibility of the directors, auditors, the outside auditors and the bank’s derectors. They are responsible for the loss or damage of the Corporation and the third party even though there are the president’s or the owner’s order regarding the overstating. If they would make a plea of innocence that they did not decide the overstating of their own will, it could not be approved by the Court. When there are any directors taking charge of the account, the president himself cannot be exempted from the duty of supervising the corporate accounts.Whether there is a cause and effect’s relation between overstating account and the corporation’s loss is one of difficult questions to answer simply. The auditors are responsible for the corporation’s loss or damage when they have been negligent in carrying out their duties. And they are also responsible for the third party’s loss when they have been negligent in carrying out their duties intentionally or by serious mistakes. So if an auditor does not carry out any duty under the situation of lacking of the inner and outer controling system over accounting, he or she must be responsible for it. The outside auditors may be responsible for the damage of the corporation or the third party if they have not written the errors made by the corporation’s account- charging person. In the lawsuit about the outside auditors, the responsibility of giving the proof would be on the part of the outside auditors themselves, as most of the materials about the accounting would be within the auditors’ business area. The ‘Event Study’ as used frequently in the Economics or Business administrations in not decisive in deciding the cause-effect issue, as the points of view are not always the same between the law and the ‘Event Study’ approach. The negligence offsetting method in the lawsuit can be surely allowed in deciding the sum of the account-overstaters’ indemnification to the company and others who have been derectly damaged by the overstated accounts. The degree of the duty of care of the financing institutions’ (eg. banks’) director, manager, auditor and officer should be decided considering the quasi-public characteristic of them. In this issue, the second grade financing institutions are not quite different from the banks(the 1st grade financing institutions). Our Court have decided that the negative prescription of the directors’ and auditors’ indemnifying responsibility to the corporation and the third party is 10 years, which I agree with.
Filters
보기형식
정렬순서
포맷
리스트 수