중소기업을 통한 경제 활성화 방안 - 한국법제연구원

(1)

- -*

. II.

1.

2.

3.

4.

III.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

IV.

1.

2.

3. R& D 4.

5.

V.

* .

: 2014. 11. 30. / : 2014. 12. 10. / : 2014. 12. 10.

(2)

.

2 .

, .

‘ ’

. 2012

. 2013 4 30

“ ” , 60

“ ” 5

“ ”

.

“ ( )” 6

7 2 . 6

,

9% 4% “ ,

” ,

“ ’(

)” .

, ,

. .

. , ,

. 2013

12 31 ( ‘ ’)

(3)

( ‘ ’) .¹⁾ 2014 1 29

( ‘ ’)

.

. ,

, .

II.

. G7

,

.²⁾

2012 11.4% , 5.5%

.

.³⁾

1) , “ ”, 13

1 , 2014, 184 .

2) , “ ”, 2013-10

, 2013. 4. 29. 1 . 2011 +1.4% 2012 -0.6%

, 2011 +0.3% 2012 +0.7% .

3) , , 2011-09, 436 , 1 .

(4)

, . ,

.⁴⁾ 2009 (United Nations

Industrial Development Organization: UNIDO)⁵⁾

, 2005 122 6 . 2000

-2.3% , -4.5%

2.7% .

.⁶⁾ , 1996 ,

, 21%

. 2008 ,

.⁷⁾ 2008 19%

10% ,

17% .

2010 6.4%

. , , ,

4 .

.⁸⁾

GDP , GDP

4) , “

(I)”, 25 22 , 567 , 2013, 5 .

5) .

6) · · , “ ”,

, 2013, 29 .

7) , .

, .

8) · · , “ ”,

, 2013, 33 .

(5)

, GDP .

.

, .

. ,

.

(Hermann Simon) 1990

1~3 ,

‘

(Hidden Champion)’ . ‘ ’

500 , 1

. 2010

1~3 ‘ ’ 1,500 1,350

. , ,

, , 5

.

16 .

,

.

. 97.3% ,

(6)

2006 41.1%, 61.2%

. 10 97.5%,

98.2% .⁹⁾

, .

.¹⁰⁾ ‘ ,

’ ‘

’ .

2012 396 ,

70 100

.

,

.

30 DAX plus Family 30

DAX

.¹¹⁾ .

9) , , 11-09 436 , 2011 3 1 , 9 .

10) , , 11-09 436 , 2011 3 1 , 10 .

11) , “ ”,

2013-10 , 2013. 4. 29, 8 .

(7)

25 6

60% .¹²⁾

. 2008 ,

4 1 10

, 7 15% (

13a , 13b ).

III.

.¹³⁾ ,

. (Institut für Mittelstandsforschung: IFM) ,

‘ 500 50 ’ , ‘

’

. 9 100 (Klein)

, 10 499 100 5000

(Mittel) .

,

. 2009 367 2012 370

, 2012

368 99.6% . 2010 ,

2,568 1,524

60% , 1,184 46.1%,

358 13.9% .

12) , “ , ”, 2012 , , 1012 1 16 .

13) ,

(GmbH) .

(8)

(Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau: KfW),

(Deutsche Ausgleichsbank: DtA) ,

.¹⁴⁾ (Hausbank)

. (Hausbank)

. .¹⁵⁾

. .

(Hausbank)

.¹⁶⁾ (Sparkasse) ‘

,

’ .

, (KfW)

(On-lending) KfW

.¹⁷⁾

14) , “ ”,

, 2009, 21 .

15) , “ on-lending

”, , 2008, 3 .

16) , “

”, , 2005, 49 .

17) 2013 2 6 .

(9)

.¹⁸⁾ ,

.¹⁹⁾ ,

. 13

. 1 12

.

. , ‘ ’ ‘

’ .²⁰⁾ 27% ,

80% .

.

, .

.

, .²¹⁾

. , ,

18) · · , “ ”, Global

Market Report 13-020, 2013, 2 .

19) ,

.

20) 2014 3 27 2 .

21) · · , “ ”, Global Market

Report 12-020, 2013. 3. 19. 4 .

(10)

, . ,

.

R&D .

. .

, ‘ ’ ,

5.0% .²²⁾ 2007 R&D

3.1% ,

3.6% .

. ,

,

. ,

.

, , ,

. ,

.²³⁾

22) , , 11-09 436 , 2011 3 1 , 4 ,

1,250 R&D 3.6% 1.4% .

23) , “ ”,

, 2009, 19 .

(11)

‘ ’

. .

.²⁴⁾

‘ ’

. (seed)

. .

. , ‘

’ .

, .

, . ,

. ,

.

,

. ,

.

. . 5)

.

24) 2011 11 21 ; · , “

· ”, 2006. 12, 55 .

(12)

1954

(Allianz Industrie Forschung:

AiF) 2007 (KMU-Innovation) 2010

6 , 450

3 , ZIM(Zentral

Innovationsprogramm Mittelstand)

.²⁵⁾ ZIM ,

R&D · ,

R&D .²⁶⁾

,

, , ,

.

, , , , .

, . R&D

.

1990 2009 .

. (Seed Stage)

"e (Early Stage)'

. (Start-up Stage) ERP

. (Later Stage) ERP

100

( 75% ) .

(subsidized loan) ( ), (

25) , , 11-09 436 , 2011 3 1 , 3 .

26) , “ ”,

‘ ‘ 3 , 2014 7 31 , 22 .

(13)

), . . ,

5 , (

) 500 5,000 5

.

. / ( )

, .

(ADT) .

.

(Große Koalition)²⁷⁾ .

2005 , 2006 4 ‘EURO 6 Billion

Programme’ .

2009 60 .

‘ ’ ‘

’ .

27) 2005 11 (Bundestag) (Angela D. Merkel) (CDU)

.

7 - (CDU)- (CSU)

(SPD) (Große Koalition) . 1966

39 , 614 448

.

(14)

, , , ,

. ,

GO-Bio

PRO INNO(Programm Innovationskompetenz mittelständischer Unternehmen) II .²⁸⁾ 1

,

. ,

.

,

. ,

(MPG), , ,

2010 3%

, .

R&D 2007

R&D

28) 1997 7

,

. PRO INNO 1999 2003 ,

PRO INNO II 2004 8 1 . PRO INNO II

. , “

”, 3

, 2014 7 31 , 24 .

(15)

‘ (Forschungsprämie)’

.

. GDP

R&D 3% .

.

(Gesellschaft mit beschränkte Haftung: GmbH)

. ,

.²⁹⁾ 2002 .

(Private Limited Company)

.³⁰⁾ 2007 ,

30,000 40,000 .

.³¹⁾ ,

.³²⁾ 2007

.

29) · , ( ) 5 , , 2008, 972 .

30) Kinder, Grundzüge des neuen Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht, NJW 2008, S. 3249.

31) EuGH, Slg. 1999, I-1549 = NJW 1999, 2027 - Centros; EuGH, Slg. 2002, I - 9919 = NJW 2002, 3614 - Überseering.

32) , “2008 ", 22

3 , 2009, 114 .

(16)

.

. .

, 25,000 10,000

( ) .³³⁾ ( )

, 25,000 , 1

‘ (Mini-GmbH)’ ‘1-Euro-GmbH’ .³⁴⁾

,

.³⁵⁾ ,

1

.

,

. (

5 2 ).

33) , “ (MoMiG ) ”, 13 4 ,

2006, 546 .

34) Hirt, Die "Große GmbH-Regorm", NZG 2008, 761 (762).

35) 7 2 3 , 36 2 2 .

(17)

. ,

.³⁶⁾

( 17 ).

, . ,

.

( 8 1 6 ),

.

, . .

.

. ,

. .

,

. 1

.

,

. ,

36) Hueck/Windbichler, Gesellschaftsrecht, C.H.Beck, 23. Aufl., 2013, S. 237 f.

(18)

.

, .³⁷⁾

.

, 1 1

, . 1

, 1

( 7 2 3 , 19 4 ).

IV.

1960

. , LG

.

. .

. ,

, , , , 1

.

. , ,

37) , “

( ) - ,

-”, 18 , , 2010, 329 .

(19)

. ,

.

. ,

.

, .

.

, ‘ (Hauptschule)’ ‘

(Realschule)’ .

. ,

‘ ’

. .

.

, .

,

. ,

.

,

(20)

.

(R&D) ,

R&D .

, · ·

R&D .

,

. ,

.

,

. ,

,

.

. .

. , , .

.

(21)

.

, 2008 .

.

(Hausbank)

.

. .

. ,

. .

. ,

, .

, . .

.

V.

. ,

(22)

,

. ,

. .

, , .

(23)

· , “ ”, Global Market Report, 13-020, Kotra, 2013.

, “ ”,

, 2005.

, “ (I)”, 25

22 , 567 , 2013.

, “ on-lending

”, , 2008,

· · , “ ”,

, 2013.

, “ ”,

2013-10 , 2013. 4. 29.

, “

”, , 2009.

, “ ”, 13

1 , 2014.

______, “ ( )

- ,

-”, 18 , , 2010.

______, “ ”,

‘ ‘ 3 ,

2014 7 31 .

______, “2008 ", 22

3 , 2009,

· , ( ) 5 , , 2008.

, “ ”,

, 2009.

, “ , ”, 2012 , , 1012

1 16 .

· , “ · ”, 2006. 12.

(24)

, “ (MoMiG ) ”,

13 4 , 2006.

2014 3 27 .

, , 2011-09, 436 .

Hirt Heribert, Die "Große GmbH-Regorm", NZG 2008, 761 ff.

Hueck Götz/Windbichler Christine, Gesellschaftsrecht, C.H.Beck, 23. Aufl., 2013.

Kinder Peter, Grundzüge des neuen Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht, NJW 2008, S. 3249 ff.

(25)

< >

. .

.

, .

,

. ,

, .

.

, .

(26)

Journal of Legislation Research / 47th Issue

:

Economic Revitalization through Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs)

- Implications derived from the SMEs in German -

Yoo, Ju-Seon*³⁸⁾ This paper has been looking for ways to enable the economy through the development of SMEs. The difficulties of the economy has been accelerating. The idea that one must develop a plan for SMEs to overcome the current economic difficulties have been raised. While Germany expanded the discussion around the country, known as exemplary of SMEs, trying to discover the implications. Many European countries are in a situation that does not exit from the sovereign debt status, the development of the German economy is quite encouraging. Europe, despite the economic downturn continues, toxic Germany as a country is a bar that has saved the sustained economic growth without regard to it, there is a need for this quest. Germany is among the most important causes of economic growth points, the strong competitiveness of SMEs can definitely present. German SMEs is that it maintains a long life in the form of a company based on family businesses manufacturing, through a two-tier system of vocational education institutions provide the manpower needed by the company constantly is also worth noting details. To accommodate all of the systems in Germany will have some difficulty.

But a clear understanding of what the foundation that such a system could be settled in Germany, acceptability and measures will have to be prepared to evolve.

* Professor Dr. Department of Law in the Kangnam University