단일기업집단 이론에 따른 법인격의 부인 - 미국 선박가압류 사건을 중심으로 -

Piercing the Corporate Veil by Enterprise Liability Theory in Maritime Attachment

전통적인 화주국인 미국의 해사관할 소송에서는 선주나 해상운송인의 재산에 대한 준대물소송이 인정된다. 선박에 대한 가압류는 대표적인 준대물소송이라 할 수 있는데, 이때 피가압류자인 선주와 가압류자의 채무자 사이에 동일성 여부가 논란이 되는 경우가 있다. 이때 법인격부인론이 의의를 가진다. 본고에서 살펴보는 사안도 이와 관련된 것으로, 별도의 영국소송에서 승소한 원고가 미국 연방법원에 승소판결의 집행을 구하면서 영국소송의 피고(capri)와 분신관계에 있다고 의심되는 피고회사(S&P)의 선박을 가압류하였고, 피고 소유의 선박에 대한 가압류청구의 타당성을 입증하기 위해 법인격부인론을 주장하였다. 법원은 외국판결의 승인과 집행을 구하는 금전적인 성격의 배상청구소송이 여전히 해사관할에 포함되는지 여부, 해사 가압류 청구의 입증과 유지 요건, 그리고 법인격부인의 입증책임의 소재와 구체적인 정황에 따른 사실관계 등에 관하여 판단하였다. 본고는 미국 해상법상 인정되는 해사관할과 선박가압류제도를 간략히 살펴본 후 선박가압류사건에서 문제되는 법인격부인론, 특히 단일기업집단 이론(Single Business Enterprise Theory 혹은 Enterprise Liability Theory)을 중점적으로 고찰하였다.

The plaintiff brought an action in the district court against defendants seeking to “pierce the corporate veil” and enforce a judgment against defendants it had previously obtained against non-party at English High Court previously. After determining that its exercise of admiralty jurisdiction was proper, the court vacated attachment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded its claim to plausibly establish that defendants were alter egos of non-party or its related entities. Some critical issues in this case are as follows: First, regarding to the jurisdiction matter, legal action in Commercial Court of English High Court of Justice, rather than Admiralty Court, did not divest resulting judgment of its admiralty character in United States. Also reduction of English judgment on maritime claim to monetary award did not divest award of its admiralty character. Second, Supplemental Rule B could be used to attach admiralty defendants' property and dismissal of underlying alter ego complaint could lead to vacatur of Supplemental Rule B attachment. Third, decisions to pierce the corporate veil are fact intensive and in order to succeed in an alter ego claim, plaintiff need to prove the facts to the level of creating a reasonable belief to support the claim of alter ego. Even though the plaintiff attempted in this case with various factual allegations such as fleet interconnectness, sharing office facilities, frequent capital transactions, the court did not accept the legal conclusion that the defendants were an alter ego of non-party. This seems to be an equitable justice considering the general principle of piercing the corporate veil: plaintiff seeking to pierce corporate veil must prove either that individual defendant used his or her corporation to perpetrate fraud or that individual defendant so dominated corporation and disregarded its corporate form that corporation primarily transacted individual defendant's personal business rather than its own corporate business. However, maritime attachment case with corporate veil piercing is somewhat different. At there, limited liability of individual shareholder is not an issue and there is no fraud in operation of separated corporation entities. Thus, for the veil piercing case which is connected with maritime attachment another alternative approach is recommendable. In this manner, this article suggests “single business enterprise” or “enterprise liability” theory.