Comparing Of The Supervisory BoardSystem Between China And Korea

Confronted with the revising the company law, many Chinese scholarshave been widely investigating on the establishment of efficient supervisorsboard. The legislative target of company law in China is to make the statecompanies conversed to corporate form by the reformation and openingpolicy in the course of the transformation from socialist planning economicsystem to socialist market economic system. Compared with the backgroundof corporate evolvement in other countries, it can be said that the situation inChina has its own particular characters. Although there is something far-fetched if we just simply compare the supervisor boards between Korea andChina, it is still a reasonable research to compare the countries' legislativeregulations on supervisors boards under the recognition on the differencesbetween the two countries, so that we can find some problems in China'regulations and provide necessary legislative basis and relevant informationfor China. Similar to the situation in Korea, Chinese supervisory board lawsystem in company law also has the problems about profession and loyalty,and Chinese people have done much self-criticism. However, the authorbelieves that it is more reasonable to deeply investigate on the specific formof the supervisor board than to discuss whether to completely adopt thesystem or not. From this point, it will make great sense to investigate thelegislative cases on the supervisory board law systems of many othercountries. What's more, for a country like China which has so muchcommunication with Korea both in human and material resources and belongsto the continent law system as well as Korea, it is greatly meaningful toprovide relevant theoretical basis for improving the efficiency, transparency,and fairness of corporate management by way of referring to the revolutionsand cases on corporate legislation in Korea, which is absolutely thesignification of this thesis.The thesis consists of five parts.Part one is the introduction of supervisor board. Part two is about thelegislative cases on supervisory board law systems in other countries. In partthree, the author introduces the legislative evolvements and problems both inKorea and in China, and analyzes the merits and defects of the newsupervisor committee of Korea, and also the economic effects and therelevant suggestions for China which the Korea supervisor committee bringabout. In part four, based on the comparing of the supervisor systems betweenKorea and China, the author provides some theoretical basis for legislativerevolution on the supervisory board law system of China. Part five is simplythe personal thoughts.