CAJ | 학술논문

目前法院处理公司章程修改案中出现两种完全不同的裁判思路：一种是主张尊重修改章程法定程序的效力，仅对程序的结果即股东会决议内容进行合法性审查；另一种则主张直接从程序入手，要求特定事项的章程修改必须经全体股东同意才有效。哪一种主张更合理，存在争议。通过梳理裁判思路背后的学理基础，发觉前一思路自由裁量依据不足，而后一裁判思路直接与公司法上的程序规则相冲突，具有合理性而又不具合法性。因此，需要从立法上根本解决公司章程修改案的司法裁判难题。具体而言，立法可以考虑借鉴西方发达国家超级多数决和类别表决制度来完善现行《公司法》上的多数决规则，从而增强其对中小股东的保护能力。
목전법원처리공사장정수개안중출현량충완전불동적재판사로：일충시주장존중수개장정법정정서적효력，부대정서적결과즉고동회결의내용진행합법성심사；령일충칙주장직접종정서입수，요구특정사항적장정수개필수경전체고동동의재유효。나일충주장경합리，존재쟁의。통과소리재판사로배후적학리기출，발각전일사로자유재량의거불족，이후일재판사로직접여공사법상적정서규칙상충돌，구유합이성이우불구합법성。인차，수요종입법상근본해결공사장정수개안적사법재판난제。구체이언，입법가이고필차감서방발체국가초급다수결화유별표결제도래완선현행《공사법》상적다수결규칙，종이증강기대중소고동적보호능력。
Two completely different methods are adopted by courts to rule the case on amending corporate charter:one is to respect the procedural effects for amending by undertaking legitimate examination of the procedure’s results which is the decisions made by shareholders meeting;the other is to directly examine the procedure which requires that amendments for specific matters should be agreed by all shareholders for being effective. Controversies arise on which method is more reasonable?On review of theoretical basis for both methods,this paper holds that the former one lacks grounds for discretion while the latter one directly conflicts with the procedural rules of the Corporate Act which is reasonable but not legitimate. Therefore,in order to solve this judicial predicament,the legislative method should be adopted by taking reference of the super-majority rules and class vote from Western jurisdictions so as to perfect the majority rules in the Corporate Act and to enhance the capacity to protect minority shareholders.