• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.141-150
• /
• 2021

Although management decisions centered on the board of directors and directors must be made in order to effectively promote ESG management, the company's management is not obligated to make decisions considering ESG factors. A Korean corporation(company) is an established organization for commercial or other profit, and the purpose of treating a legal organization as a corporation is to easily handle the legal relationship of a group (corporate's property) and individual property of a group member, but legal person such as rights to "harm public rights" or "defend fraud". Criminal liability for illegal acts of a corporation, but the liability of a corporation (natural person) for illegal acts of a corporation is recognized within a limited range, but the criminal liability of a corporation (natural person) is limited. As the social responsibility of a corporation is great, limiting the responsibility of a corporation-related person (natural person) to civil responsibility will halve its effectiveness if considering the impact on the corporation's national economy. Objective requirements such as the completeness of control, hybridization of property, infringement of creditors' rights, and small-capitalization, and the subjective intention of abusing the company system to avoid legal application to controlling shareholders should be denied. Despite the increasing influence on corporate society, such as large-scale projects and astronomical business profits, corporate officials (natural persons) are forced to be held liable for negligence and intentional liability within a limited range. In such cases, it is necessary to introduce criminal responsibility separately from civil responsibility to legal persons (natural persons) in consideration of the maturity of capitalism in Korean society and the economic status of the world. In Korea, the requirements for recognition of corporate denial are strict, but the United States says that it is sufficient to have control or fraud. Therefore, it is not about civil responsibility, but about criminal responsibility of a legal person (natural person), so if fraud is recognized, it can strengthen the corporate social responsibility.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

Church is one of organizations recognized not as corporation but as private association and therefore its identity and possession of properties must be confirmed by the general theories of the civil law in relation not to corporation but to private association. Different from corporation, the internal relations of private association is primarily regulated by the articles of association. When there is no article of association, ordinary resolution and provisions for incorporated association in the civil law are applied by inference. As for the debt of private association, all the members own it in a quasi-joint manner (article 275 and 278). For the last 50 years, the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court has permitted the partition of church for the Protestant church and ruled that the relationship of properties at the time of partition is the joint ownership by church members at the time of partition. This ruling is different from that of corporation and ordinary principles of law. However, a new judicial precedent (the Supreme Court, 2006. 4. 20, 2004다37775) prescribes that different from corporation, the partition of private association is not allowed. Thus, in order to settle the dispute of private association, the Supreme Court changes its traditional standpoint of allowing partition into denying it. This ruling seems to reflect the necessity of settling dispute above all.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.