英文摘要 |
In this case, the plaintiff claims that were authorized to pay reasonable compensation to director and supervisor of the company. But the court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim. The defendants are corporate shareholder and natural person shareholder, it may be elected as a director or supervisor of the company. The defendants argued that plaintiff had conferred the benefit upon the defendants; therefore the defendants' retention of the benefit was not unjust. The High Court determined that plaintiff should ask corporate shareholder to return the compensation. The Supreme Court states that plaintiff should ask natural person shareholder to return the compensation. Regarding this issue, one of its asserted claims is under the doctrine of internal mandate relationship, another is under the doctrine of external mandate relationship. The doctrine of external mandate relationship is divided into two parts. One part depends on mandate relationship between two parties; another depends on the tripartite agreement. This article argues that the external relationship should be re-examined by representative relationship. Because the representative's personality is acquired by the corporate shareholder, no matter corporate shareholder be elected as a director or supervisor of the company. The compensations should be granted to corporate shareholder under paragraph 1 or 2, Article 27 of Company Act. |