Corporate Governance Lawyer
Corporate Governance Lawyer | Board structure, shareholder relations, and compliance in one framework
Corporate governance advisory covers how a company's board, shareholders, and management interact within the boundaries set by the Commercial Code and, for listed companies, capital markets regulation. Disputes in this area rarely start as lawsuits — they begin as ambiguous board resolutions, informal related-party deals, or a founder-investor disagreement that was never documented properly. A governance review typically looks at director duties, shareholder agreements, related-party transaction approval, and whether the company's internal control system can actually catch problems before they become litigation (상법 제382조의3, 상법 제542조의8).
Corporate Governance | Director Duties and Board Resolution Risk
Most governance disputes trace back to a board resolution that was passed without proper process, or a director who acted outside the scope the board actually authorized.
Duty of care and loyalty
Directors owe the company a duty to perform their duties faithfully in accordance with statute and the articles of incorporation, and a duty of loyalty not to pursue personal interests that conflict with the company's (상법 제382조의3, 상법 제382조의4). Breach can expose a director to liability toward the company for resulting damages (상법 제399조). In practice, the hardest question is not whether a decision turned out badly, but whether the director followed a reasonable process in reaching it — this is where the business judgment framework matters.
Board resolution requirements
Certain matters — approval of related-party transactions, issuance of new shares within board authority, appointment of representative directors — require a valid board resolution under the Commercial Act and the company's articles. A resolution passed without proper notice to all directors, or without the quorum required by the articles, can later be challenged as void, which puts every transaction built on top of it at risk (상법 제391조).
Outside director and audit committee obligations
Listed companies above certain asset thresholds must appoint outside directors and, in many cases, an audit committee (상법 제542조의8, 상법 제542조의11). Advisory work here often focuses on whether the outside director's independence requirements are actually met, since a defective appointment can cascade into challenges against decisions the board made relying on that director's presence.
Corporate Governance | Shareholder Rights and Minority Protection
Founder-investor relationships and family-owned company successions generate a recurring pattern: a minority shareholder who feels shut out of information or decision-making, and a majority who believes they are simply running the business.
Right to inspect and shareholder meeting rights
Shareholders holding a minimum percentage of shares can request inspection of accounting books and records, and can demand convocation of a shareholders' meeting if the board fails to call one (상법 제466조, 상법 제366조). These rights are frequently the first legal lever used when a minority shareholder suspects mismanagement but does not yet have enough evidence to file a derivative suit.
Derivative suits and director liability
A shareholder meeting the statutory holding requirement can demand that the company sue a director for breach of duty, and file a derivative suit on the company's behalf if the company does not act within 30 days (상법 제403조). These cases turn heavily on documentary evidence — board minutes, internal approval records — which is why governance advisory often includes a records-hygiene review before any dispute arises.
Shareholder agreements and drag/tag rights
For venture-backed companies, the shareholder agreement (not the articles of incorporation) usually contains the actual mechanics of exit — tag-along, drag-along, liquidation preference, anti-dilution. Contract interpretation disputes here are common precisely because these clauses are negotiated once at investment and rarely revisited until an exit event forces the question.
Corporate Governance | Related-Party Transactions and Conflicts of Interest
Transactions between a company and its directors, controlling shareholders, or affiliates are not prohibited outright, but they are subject to approval requirements precisely because of the conflict-of-interest risk.
Self-dealing approval requirement
A director (or a controlling shareholder in listed companies) who wants to transact with the company must obtain prior board approval disclosing the material terms, and the transaction must be fair in its content and procedure (상법 제398조). A transaction approved without proper disclosure, or approved by a board that included the interested director in the quorum, is vulnerable to being unwound or forming the basis of a damages claim.
Large-scale related-party transactions in listed companies
Listed companies must, above certain transaction-size thresholds, obtain board approval and in some cases report to or seek approval from the shareholders' meeting before entering into a transaction with a major shareholder or specially related person (상법 제542조의9). This is one of the more frequently overlooked compliance points for companies that grow quickly and start dealing more with affiliates without updating internal approval workflows.
Corporate Governance | Internal Control Systems and Compliance Programs
Regulators and courts increasingly ask not just whether something went wrong, but whether the company had a system in place that could have caught it — this is where internal control design becomes a governance issue rather than a purely compliance one.
Internal control standards for large companies
Companies meeting certain size thresholds are required to establish and operate an internal control standard and to appoint a compliance officer responsible for monitoring compliance with that standard (상법 제542조의13). Whether this system exists only on paper or is actually followed becomes directly relevant if a director later argues they exercised reasonable business judgment relying on internal reporting.
Documentation as a defense, not just a formality
In practice, a well-kept set of board minutes, related-party approval records, and internal policy documents is often the single most useful asset a director or company has when a governance dispute or regulatory inquiry arises later. Advisory engagements frequently start with a documentation audit precisely because gaps here are what turn an otherwise defensible decision into a liability exposure.
Corporate Governance | From Initial Review to Ongoing Governance Support
We review the articles of incorporation, board composition, recent board minutes, and any shareholder agreements to identify where the current structure diverges from statutory requirements or from what the company actually intends.
For a specific transaction or dispute — a related-party deal, a contested board resolution, a shareholder demand — we provide a written opinion on the legal risk and the options available before the company commits to a course of action.
Where gaps are found, we help draft or revise board resolutions, approval workflows, shareholder agreement amendments, or internal control policies so the company's actual practice matches what the law and its own governing documents require.
If a disagreement escalates into a formal shareholder demand, derivative suit, or regulatory inquiry, the same team that handled the advisory work represents the company or the individual director through the dispute.
Many companies keep governance counsel on a standing basis so that new transactions — financing rounds, M&A, affiliate deals — get a governance-compliance check before signing rather than after a problem surfaces.
Corporate Governance | How Fees Are Set for Governance Advisory
Fees for a governance health check (articles, board minutes, shareholder agreements) are generally set based on the number of documents reviewed and company size, and quoted after an initial scoping call.
A written legal opinion on a specific board resolution or related-party transaction is typically billed based on the complexity of the transaction and the turnaround time required.
Ongoing governance counsel is often structured as a monthly retainer covering a set scope of recurring questions, with matters outside that scope billed separately.
If a matter escalates to a derivative suit, injunction, or regulatory proceeding, fees follow standard litigation fee structures (retainer plus possible success fee), discussed separately from the advisory fee.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Corporate Governance | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ For Founders and Management
- Does your board actually meet and record minutes, or are resolutions signed after the fact?
- Have you obtained board approval before any transaction between the company and a director or major shareholder?
- Do your articles of incorporation still match how the company is actually being run?
- Is there a shareholder agreement, and does it match what investors believe they agreed to?
2️⃣ For Minority Shareholders and Investors
- Have you requested to inspect the company's accounting books, and did the company respond within a reasonable time?
- Do you hold the minimum shareholding percentage required to demand a shareholders' meeting or file a derivative suit?
- Is there a specific board decision you believe breached a director's duty, and do you have documentary evidence of it?
- Does your shareholder agreement give you tag-along, information, or veto rights that the company is not honoring?
3️⃣ For Companies Approaching Listing or Investment
- Does your board composition meet outside director and audit committee requirements for your company's size?
- Have all related-party transactions in the past two years been properly approved and disclosed?
- Is there a written internal control standard, or does compliance depend entirely on informal practice?
- Would your current board minutes and approval records withstand due diligence scrutiny?
