본문 바로가기
  • Home

Unfair Intercompany Transaction and Regulation on Tunnelling

  • Journal of Regulation Studies
  • 2009, 18(2), pp.131-166
  • Publisher : 한국규제학회
  • Research Area : Social Science > Public Administration

최승재 1

1경북대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Tunnelling was regulated by a number of devices in Korean law. Shareholder's derivative litigation in Commercial Law, violation of fiduciary relationship of the directors and shadow (de facto) directors in Criminal Laws were sort of tools for the regulation of Tunnelling. In the past the other devices except for Unfair Intercompany Transaction rule Monopoly Regulation and Fair Transaction Act (MRFTA) was only one activated rule for the purpose of regulating the Tunnelling, but not any more. Korean Constitutional Court rendered decision that Unfair Intercompany Transaction regulation in MRFTA is constitutional due to four reasons. Constitutional Court's rationale can be summarized as follows: Unfair Intercompany transaction will enhance the Market Concentration and hinder the entry of independent company to the market where a certain conglomerates are resident in. Competition in those markets are very difficult for the not-related company with the Chabeol Companies. Unfair Wealth Transfer can be one of the agenda that can be obtained through the MRFTA, however that object can also be achieved by the other devices in Commercial law, penal code, and tax code with different angles. Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity rule will be able to utilized for the unfair prevention of the Wealth Transfer. Considering the past achievement by Unfair Intercompany Transaction Rule (Article 23 §1 para. 7), now is the time to think the repeal of that rule more seriously.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.