Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Standards for Recognizing a Director's Status and Implied Solicitation, and the Breach-of-Trust Determination in a Leveraged Buyout
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 15, 2010, 2009Do6634 (judgment)
Case name: 배임수재·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)(인정된죄명:업무상횡령)·배임증재
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If a director of the target company is promised 2.1 billion won by the acquiring party and receives 1.9 billion won, does that constitute receipt of a bribe for breach of trust?
Holding
The court took the view that the director owes a duty to supervise other directors and may, by attending board meetings and speaking and voting at them, take part in the sale process. Where there has been actual provision of information, recommendation of the acquiring company, and conclusion of a management advisory contract, the status of a person handling sale-related work is recognized. Taken together — the large amount, the circumstances of payment, the secret payment, and the use of slush funds — the court ratified an implied corrupt solicitation contrary to social norms. A leveraged buyout is a term in management studies that is not separately regulated by any law, so whether it falls within the constituent elements is determined case by case. Embezzlement of slush funds is determined by the custodian's intent to dispose, and, taking the timing, circumstances, and result together, is judged by whether the use was for personal purposes.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
[1] 인수·합병 추진계획이 있는 피인수회사의 이사로 취임한 갑이 미리 인수회사 그룹에 피인수회사의 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 인수회사의 대표이사 을로부터 거액의 재산상 이익을 취득한 사안에서, 피고인 갑이 회사의 이사로서 다른 이사들에 대한 감시의무가 있고, 이사 본래의 사무로서 이사회에 참석하여 발언하고 의결하는 등의 방법으로 그 회사의 매각절차에 관여할 수 있는 지위에 있었으며, 실제 이사 취임을 전후로 인수회사 그룹에 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 피인수회사에 이 그룹을 인수업체로 추천하였을 뿐만 아니라, 인수회사와 사이에 경영자문계약을 체결한 점 등에 비추어 위 매각절차에 관련한 업무를 처리하는 지위에 있다고 볼 것이고, 피고인 갑이 위 정보제공 외에 피고인 을로부터 특별한 대가를 받을 이유가 없고, 일부 금원은 인수회사의 비자금에서 지급된 점 등에 비추어 정보제공 등으로 인수를 도와달라는 취지의 묵시적 청탁이 있었다고 추인함이 상당하고, 위와 같은 청탁은 사회상규 또는 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 부정한 청탁이라는 이유로, 피고인 갑의 배임수재 및 피고인 을의 배임증재의 공소사실에 대하여 무죄를 선고한 원심판결을 법리오해의 위법을 이유로 파기한 사례. [2] 이른바 차입매수 또는 LBO(Leveraged Buy-Out의 약어)란 일의적인 법적 개념이 아니라 일반적으로 기업인수를 위한 자금의 상당 부분에 관하여 피인수회사의 자산을 담보로 제공하거나 그 상당 부분을 피인수기업의 자산으로 변제하기로 하여 차입한 자금으로 충당하는 방식의 기업인수 기법을 일괄하여 부르는 경영학상의 용어로, 거래현실에서 그 구체적인 태양은 매우 다양하다
Unofficial English translation
[1] Case in which A, who had been appointed as a director of a target company that had a plan to pursue an acquisition and merger, provided in advance to the acquiring company's group information regarding the affairs of the sale of the target company and acquired a large pecuniary benefit from B, the representative director of the acquiring company, where, as Defendant A, as a director of the company, owed a duty to supervise the other directors and held a position in which he could take part in the sale procedure of the company, including by attending the board of directors, speaking, and voting, as a matter of the director's own duties, and in light of the facts that, actually before and after his appointment as director, he provided the acquiring company's group with information regarding the sale affairs and recommended to the target company that this group be the acquirer, and moreover entered into a management advisory contract with the acquiring company, he can be regarded as being in a position of handling affairs relating to the sale procedure, and in light of the facts that Defendant A had no reason to receive a special consideration from Defendant B in return for the provision of such information and that some of the money was disbursed from the acquiring company's slush fund, it is reasonable to infer that there was an implicit request to the effect of asking for assistance in the acquisition by providing information and the like, and since such request is a wrongful request contrary to social norms or the principle of good faith, the judgment of the court below, which had pronounced a judgment of not guilty on the indictment facts of Defendant A's receipt of a bribe in breach of trust and Defendant B's offering of a bribe in breach of trust, was reversed on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles. [2] The so-called leveraged buyout or LBO (abbreviation of Leveraged Buy-Out) is not a unitary legal concept but a term in the field of business administration that collectively denotes a corporate acquisition technique whereby a substantial portion of the funds for the corporate acquisition is procured by borrowed funds, by providing the assets of the target company as collateral or by arranging to repay a substantial portion thereof with the assets of the target enterprise, and in practice its specific forms are very diverse
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 부분 및 피고인 2에 대한 배임증재의 점에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 and the portion concerning the point of offering a bribe in breach of trust against Defendant 2 are reversed and remanded to the Busan High Court
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
[1] 인수·합병 추진계획이 있는 피인수회사의 이사로 취임한 갑이 미리 인수회사 그룹에 피인수회사의 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 인수회사의 대표이사 을로부터 거액의 재산상 이익을 취득한 사안에서, 피고인 갑이 회사의 이사로서 다른 이사들에 대한 감시의무가 있고
Unofficial English translation
[1] Case in which A, who had been appointed as a director of a target company that had a plan to pursue an acquisition and merger, provided in advance to the acquiring company's group information regarding the affairs of the sale of the target company and acquired a large pecuniary benefit from B, the representative director of the acquiring company, where Defendant A, as a director of the company, owed a duty to supervise the other directors, and
Factors
- 피고인 갑이 회사의 이사로서 다른 이사들에 대한 감시의무가 있고
- 이사 본래의 사무로서 이사회에 참석하여 발언하고 의결하는 등의 방법으로 그 회사의 매각절차에 관여할 수 있는 지위에 있었으며
- 실제 이사 취임을 전후로 인수회사 그룹에 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 피인수회사에 이 그룹을 인수업체로 추천하였을 뿐만 아니라
Unofficial English translation
• Defendant A, as a director of the company, owed a duty to supervise the other directors, and
• held a position in which he could take part in the sale procedure of the company, including by attending the board of directors, speaking, and voting, as a matter of the director's own duties, and
• actually before and after his appointment as director, provided the acquiring company's group with information regarding the sale affairs and recommended to the target company that this group be the acquirer, and moreover
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
[3] 대법원 2009. 2. 28. 선고 2007도4784 판결
Unofficial English translation
[3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4784 decided February 28, 2009
Decisions referred to
[3] 대법원 2009. 2. 28. 선고 2007도4784 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a large sum is secretly received as consideration for providing information, how far should an implied solicitation be recognized?
Revisit when the possibility of involvement in board meetings and actual involvement, together with the amount paid and the method of payment, are all revealed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched Gemini 3.1 Pro · 2026-10-16
As a result of an independent cross-family AI reading, all 8 axes agree with the first reading. The disposition, the quotation of the original text of the Summary of Decision, the Form of the test, the Factors, the Relation to precedent, and the classification of the burden of proof accord with the wording of the original.
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below held that before A assumed office as a director of the target company he was not in the position of a person handling the affairs of that company, that even after assuming office he was not in charge of work relating to the sale, and that it could not be recognized that a corrupt solicitation existed between A and B; it accordingly upheld the judgment of the first instance, which declared A not guilty of receipt of a bribe for breach of trust and B not guilty of giving a bribe for breach of trust.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court agreed that the part holding that A was not in the position of a person handling affairs before assuming office is acceptable, but took the view that, as a director, A owed a duty to supervise and was in a position in which he could take part in the sale process by attending board meetings and speaking and voting at them, and that he actually took part in the sale process through provision of information, recommendation of the acquiring company, and conclusion of a management advisory contract, and therefore fell under a person handling sale-related work. It further held that, in light of the amount paid, the secret payment, and the use of slush funds, an implied corrupt solicitation to assist the acquisition could be ratified, and that the court below misapprehended legal principles by denying it. The disposition is to reverse the part of the judgment of the court below concerning A and the point of B's giving of a bribe for breach of trust, to remand this part to the Busan High Court, and to dismiss the remainder of the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases in which the question whether the offense of breach of trust is established is conclusively determined in a uniform manner solely on the ground that a leveraged buyout was used
- Cases in which the principal purpose of the use of slush funds was not personal use, so that intent to obtain an unlawful benefit cannot be recognized
Record verification notes
When applying the legal principle of Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6634 to other cases, first check whether the director was in a position handling work relating to the sale process and whether, in light of the circumstances of the payment of money and the like, there was an implied solicitation and a violation of social norms. Do not reach a conclusion solely on the ground that a leveraged buyout was used; rather, collate with the Records whether the individual acts in the process fall within the constituent elements and whether, from the timing, circumstances, and result of the use of slush funds, a principal purpose of personal use is recognized.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 인수·합병 추진 계획이 있는 피인수회사의 이사로 취임한 갑이 미리 인수회사 그룹에 피인수회사의 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 인수회사의 대표이사 을로부터 거액의 재산상 이익을 취득한 사안에서, 피고인 갑의 배임수재 및 피고인 을의 배임증재의 공소사실에 대하여 무죄를 선고한 원심판결을 법리오해의 위법을 이유로 파기한 사례 [2] 이른바 차입매수 또는 LBO(Leveraged Buy-Out의 약어) 방식의 기업인수에서 배임죄 성립 여부의 판단 기준 [3] 회사의 비자금을 보관하는 자가 비자금을 사용하는 경우, 횡령죄 인정 여부의 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] Case in which A, who had been appointed as a director of a target company that had a plan to pursue an acquisition and merger, provided in advance to the acquiring company's group information regarding the affairs of the sale of the target company and acquired a large pecuniary benefit from B, the representative director of the acquiring company, where the judgment of the court below, which had pronounced a judgment of not guilty on the indictment facts of Defendant A's receipt of a bribe in breach of trust and Defendant B's offering of a bribe in breach of trust, was reversed on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles [2] Criteria for determining whether the offense of breach of trust is established in a corporate acquisition by means of the so-called leveraged buyout or LBO (abbreviation of Leveraged Buy-Out) [3] Criteria for determining whether the offense of embezzlement is acknowledged where a person who keeps a company's slush fund uses the slush fund
Summary of the holding
[1] 인수·합병 추진계획이 있는 피인수회사의 이사로 취임한 갑이 미리 인수회사 그룹에 피인수회사의 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 인수회사의 대표이사 을로부터 거액의 재산상 이익을 취득한 사안에서, 피고인 갑이 회사의 이사로서 다른 이사들에 대한 감시의무가 있고, 이사 본래의 사무로서 이사회에 참석하여 발언하고 의결하는 등의 방법으로 그 회사의 매각절차에 관여할 수 있는 지위에 있었으며, 실제 이사 취임을 전후로 인수회사 그룹에 매각업무에 관한 정보를 제공하고 피인수회사에 이 그룹을 인수업체로 추천하였을 뿐만 아니라, 인수회사와 사이에 경영자문계약을 체결한 점 등에 비추어 위 매각절차에 관련한 업무를 처리하는 지위에 있다고 볼 것이고, 피고인 갑이 위 정보제공 외에 피고인 을로부터 특별한 대가를 받을 이유가 없고, 일부 금원은 인수회사의 비자금에서 지급된 점 등에 비추어 정보제공 등으로 인수를 도와달라는 취지의 묵시적 청탁이 있었다고 추인함이 상당하고, 위와 같은 청탁은 사회상규 또는 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 부정한 청탁이라는 이유로, 피고인 갑의 배임수재 및 피고인 을의 배임증재의 공소사실에 대하여 무죄를 선고한 원심판결을 법리오해의 위법을 이유로 파기한 사례. [2] 이른바 차입매수 또는 LBO(Leveraged Buy-Out의 약어)란 일의적인 법적 개념이 아니라 일반적으로 기업인수를 위한 자금의 상당 부분에 관하여 피인수회사의 자산을 담보로 제공하거나 그 상당 부분을 피인수기업의 자산으로 변제하기로 하여 차입한 자금으로 충당하는 방식의 기업인수 기법을 일괄하여 부르는 경영학상의 용어로, 거래현실에서 그 구체적인 태양은 매우 다양하다. 이러한 차입매수에 관하여는 이를 따로 규율하는 법률이 없는 이상 일률적으로 차입매수 방식에 의한 기업인수를 주도한 관련자들에게 배임죄가 성립한다거나 성립하지 아니한다고 단정할 수 없는 것이고, 배임죄의 성립 여부는 차입매수가 이루어지는 과정에서의 행위가 배임죄의 구성요건에 해당하는지 여부에 따라 개별적으로 판단되어야 한다. [3] 횡령이 인정되기 위하여는 타인의 재물을 보관하는 자가 권한 없이 그 재물을 자기의 소유인 것 같이 처분하는 의사가 인정되어야 하고, 이는 회사의 비자금을 보관하는 자가 비자금을 사용하는 경우라고 하여 달라지는 것이 아니다. 한편 비자금 사용에 관하여는 그 비자금을 사용하게 된 시기, 경위, 결과 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 해당 비자금 사용의 주된 목적이 피고인의 개인적인 용도에 사용하기 위한 것이라고 볼 수 있는지 여부 내지 불법영득의사의 존재를 인정할 수 있는지 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 부분 및 피고인 2에 대한 배임증재의 점에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 and the portion concerning the point of offering a bribe in breach of trust against Defendant 2 are reversed and remanded to the Busan High Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제357조 제1항, 제2항 [2] 형법 제355조 제2항, 제356조 [3] 형법 제355조 제1항, 제356조
Read 2026-10-15 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger