Appraisal right of dissenting shareholders: Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision 2016Ma5394, 5395(byeonghap), 5396(byeonghap) delivered on April 14, 2022

Under the Korean Commercial Code(the “KCC”), the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market(the “FSC”) and the Enforcement decree of the FSC(the “ED”) provides that (i) where a shareholder, dissenting from a resolution regarding corporate reorganizations such as mergers and acquisitions under the KCC, has notified the company of his/her dissent to such resolution in writing before a shareholders meeting, he/she may request the company to purchase his/her shares in writing, specifying the classes and number of such shares, within 20 days from the date of the resolution at such shareholders meeting, (ii) where the company receives a request, the relevant company shall purchase the shares in the period during which a request for purchase can be made under the KCC, FSC and the ED, (iii) the purchase price of shares shall be determined through consultation between the shareholder and the company, (iv) where the consultation fails to produce an agreement within specified period during which a request for purchase can be made, the company or the shareholder who has requested the purchase of shares may request the court to determine the purchase price and (v) where the court decide on the purchase price of shares, it shall compute it by a fair value in view of the status of assets of the company and other situations. Evaluating the price of the shares has been disputed due to the silence of the KCC etc regarding the specific meaning and method of calculating of such shares, and also the court decides it not according to the civil procedure process under the Korean Civil Procedure Act, but according to the procedure process under the Korean Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act and therefore the court decision standard of this issue is ambiguous. In evaluating the the price of the shares, courts deem a standard market price of the company as the fair value of the shares because courts believed that the standard market price of the shares has been decided on the stock market and market price deems reasonably among related parties. However, in the exception case of that severe distortion of the price arisen from intentional engagements by controlling shareholders in stock pricing is detected, court may conduct a judicial discretion granted to, and therefore, shall ex officio find facts and examine evidence as it deems necessary, in a sense of protecting minority shareholders from majority rules. The court decision rendered by the Supreme Court on April 14, 2022{2016Ma5394, 5395(byeonghap), 5396(byeonghap)} agreed to such court application. In the above case where dissenting shareholders experienced value discount arisen from severe distortion of stock pricing, court fixed and remedied such discount in evaluating the stock price. Given the institutional function of the appraisal rights of dissenting shareholders, court’s conclusion drew the result of protecting minority shareholders adequately and it seems to be adequate. And then, although it is unclear whether courts would hold, in cases where whether the increased effect from accomplishment of corporate reorganization such as mergers and acquisitions, that is, a synergy effect, should be considered in evaluating fair value of dissenting shareholders. Considering the above court rulings, the related decisions in the near future need to be carefully examined.