<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nJaponya’daki en yayg\u0131n \u015firket t\u00fcr\u00fc olan anonim \u015firketlerin (KK) hissedarlar\u0131n\u0131n haklar\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, godo kaisha (\u5408\u540c\u4f1a\u793e) olarak bilinen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ortakl\u0131klar\u0131n ortaklar\u0131n\u0131n haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zellikleri daha net anla\u015f\u0131labilir. Her iki t\u00fcr \u015firket aras\u0131ndaki farklar, temeldeki “m\u00fclkiyet ve y\u00f6netim” ili\u015fkisinin farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anonim \u015firketler, “m\u00fclkiyet ile y\u00f6netimin ayr\u0131lmas\u0131” ilkesini benimser ve yat\u0131r\u0131mc\u0131lar olan hissedarlar, y\u00f6netimi y\u00f6netim uzmanlar\u0131 olan y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyelerine devrederler. Hissedarlar\u0131n haklar\u0131, esas olarak genel kurulda oy kullanarak dolayl\u0131 yoldan y\u00f6netimi etkileme ve temett\u00fc al\u0131m\u0131 gibi konulara odaklan\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6te yandan, godo kaisha t\u00fcr\u00fc \u015firketlerde “m\u00fclkiyet ile y\u00f6netimin uyumu” ilkesi ge\u00e7erlidir ve yat\u0131r\u0131mc\u0131lar olan ortaklar kendileri y\u00f6netimi \u00fcstlenirler. Bu nedenle, haklar daha do\u011frudan ve esnektir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, kar payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 yat\u0131r\u0131m oranlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n serbest\u00e7e t\u00fcz\u00fckte belirlenebilir. Karar alma s\u00fcreci de, genel kurul gibi resmi prosed\u00fcrler olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, ortaklar aras\u0131nda h\u0131zl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde mutabakatla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilebilir. Paylar\u0131n devri i\u00e7in di\u011fer t\u00fcm ortaklar\u0131n onay\u0131 gereklidir ve bu, \u015firketin insan ili\u015fkilerine dayal\u0131 kapal\u0131 bir yap\u0131ya sahip oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bu temel farkl\u0131l\u0131klar a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki tabloda \u00f6zetlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u00d6zellik<\/td> Godo Kaisha<\/td> Anonim \u015eirket (KK)<\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Kar Pay\u0131 Da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m \u0130lkesi<\/td> T\u00fcz\u00fckte serbest\u00e7e belirlenebilir<\/td> Esas olarak yat\u0131r\u0131m oran\u0131na g\u00f6re<\/td><\/tr> Karar Alma Organ\u0131<\/td> Esas olarak t\u00fcm ortaklar\u0131n onay\u0131\/\u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu<\/td> Genel Kurul<\/td><\/tr> Oy Hakk\u0131n\u0131n Temeli<\/td> Esas olarak ortaklar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu (say\u0131 olarak) taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131nan kararlar (t\u00fcz\u00fckte de\u011fi\u015fiklik yap\u0131labilir)<\/td> Esas olarak bir hisse bir oy hakk\u0131<\/td><\/tr> Y\u00f6neticiler<\/td> \u0130\u015fleri y\u00fcr\u00fcten ortaklar (esas olarak t\u00fcm ortaklar)<\/td> Y\u00f6netim Kurulu \u00dcyeleri<\/td><\/tr> M\u00fclkiyet ve Y\u00f6netim \u0130li\u015fkisi<\/td> Uyum<\/td> Ayr\u0131lma<\/td><\/tr> Pay Devri<\/td> Di\u011fer t\u00fcm ortaklar\u0131n onay\u0131 gereklidir<\/td> Esas olarak serbest (devir k\u0131s\u0131tlamal\u0131 hisseler hari\u00e7)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\nBu kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmadan, godo kaisha t\u00fcr\u00fc \u015firketlerin, insan ili\u015fkilerine dayal\u0131, esnek ve h\u0131zl\u0131 y\u00f6netim anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131yla k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7ekli ortak giri\u015fimler i\u00e7in uygun oldu\u011fu, anonim \u015firketlerin ise geni\u015f \u00e7apta sermaye toplama ve m\u00fclkiyet ile y\u00f6netimin ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 prensibiyle b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7ekli i\u015fletme y\u00f6netimi i\u00e7in uygun bir yap\u0131ya sahip oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Japonya’da \u015eirket \u0130\u00e7i Anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar ve Yarg\u0131 Kararlar\u0131: Bir Ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00dcyeler Aras\u0131ndaki \u00c7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nKabushiki Kaisha’n\u0131n esnekli\u011fi ve kapal\u0131 yap\u0131s\u0131, \u00fcyeler aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisi korundu\u011fu s\u00fcrece b\u00fcy\u00fck avantajlar sa\u011flar. Ancak, bu g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisi bir kez bozuldu\u011funda, ciddi i\u015f duraklamalar\u0131na ve anla\u015fmazl\u0131klara yol a\u00e7abilecek riskler ta\u015f\u0131r. B\u00f6yle durumlarda ba\u015fvurulabilecek son \u00e7are, sorunlu \u00fcyeyi \u015firketten zorla \u00e7\u0131karma i\u015flemi olan ‘\u00e7\u0131karma’ sistemidir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Japon \u015eirketler Hukuku’nun 859. maddesi, bir \u00fcyenin haks\u0131z eylemleri veya ciddi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck ihlalleri gibi ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz nedenlerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, \u015firketin di\u011fer \u00fcyelerin \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131yla, mahkemeye ba\u015fvurarak s\u00f6z konusu \u00fcyenin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep edebilece\u011fini belirtir. Bu ‘ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz nedenlerin’ nas\u0131l yorumlanaca\u011f\u0131na dair iki kar\u015f\u0131t yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 \u00f6nemli ipu\u00e7lar\u0131 sunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u0130lk olarak, \u00e7\u0131karma talebinin reddedildi\u011fi bir \u00f6rnek olarak, Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi’nin 2019 (Reiwa 1) y\u0131l\u0131 3 Temmuz tarihli karar\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu dava, bir e\u015f olan iki \u00fcyeden olu\u015fan bir \u015firkette, e\u015f olan \u00fcye A’n\u0131n, di\u011fer e\u015f ve temsilci \u00fcye Y’nin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi bir durumdur. A, Y’nin A’n\u0131n imzas\u0131n\u0131 sahtecilik yaparak mali tablolar\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ve muhasebe defterlerine eri\u015fim talebine yan\u0131t vermedi\u011fini \u00e7\u0131karma gerek\u00e7esi olarak ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ancak, mahkeme talebi reddetmi\u015ftir. Bunun en b\u00fcy\u00fck nedeni, \u015firketin i\u015flerinin esasen Y’nin tek ba\u015f\u0131na y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc faaliyetlerle ayakta duruyor olmas\u0131 ve Y’nin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015firketin i\u015f s\u00fcreklili\u011fine ciddi engeller yarataca\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Mahkeme, Y’nin eylemlerinin sorunlu oldu\u011funu kabul etmekle birlikte, bu durumun daha \u00e7ok e\u015fler aras\u0131 \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n \u015firkete ta\u015f\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve Y’nin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015firketin devam\u0131 i\u00e7in ‘ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz’ oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyemeyece\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u0130kinci olarak, \u00e7\u0131karma talebinin kabul edildi\u011fi bir \u00f6rnek olarak, Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi’nin 2021 (Reiwa 3) y\u0131l\u0131 29 Kas\u0131m tarihli karar\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu dava da iki \u00fcyeden olu\u015fan bir \u015firkette, bir \u00fcyenin (t\u00fczel ki\u015fi) i\u015f y\u00fcr\u00fctme g\u00f6revlisi, \u015firketin fonlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6zel ama\u00e7larla usuls\u00fcz bir \u015fekilde kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer \u00fcye, bu usuls\u00fcz eylemi gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek, usuls\u00fczl\u00fck yapan i\u015f y\u00fcr\u00fctme g\u00f6revlisinin ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu t\u00fczel ki\u015fi \u00fcyenin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme bu talebi kabul etmi\u015ftir. Karar, fonlar\u0131n \u00f6zel ama\u00e7larla kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n, \u015eirketler Hukuku’nun 859. maddesinin 3. f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen ‘i\u015fleri y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcrken haks\u0131z eylemde bulunma’ durumuna a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a uydu\u011funu ve \u00fcyeler aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisini temelden sarsan bir eylem oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda, usuls\u00fcz eylemin ciddiyeti, \u00e7\u0131karman\u0131n i\u015f \u00fczerindeki etkisini a\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve \u015firketin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 devam\u0131 i\u00e7in usuls\u00fcz eylemde bulunan \u00fcyenin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz oldu\u011funa karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bu iki yarg\u0131 karar\u0131, mahkemenin \u00e7\u0131karma karar\u0131nda sadece eylemin bi\u00e7imsel yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda eylemin \u015firketin i\u015f s\u00fcreklili\u011fine olan etkisini ve \u00fcyeler aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisini ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bozdu\u011funu da dikkate ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermektedir. \u00d6zellikle, \u015firketin devam\u0131n\u0131 tehdit eden ciddi usuls\u00fczl\u00fckler (zimmet gibi) ile y\u00f6netimdeki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ayr\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 veya g\u00f6zetim yetkisinin kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 gibi sorunlar aras\u0131nda net bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu, \u00fcyeler i\u00e7in \u00e7\u0131karma gibi son \u00e7arelerin ne kadar s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlamalar\u0131 ve haklar\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in, anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar ciddile\u015fmeden \u00f6nce t\u00fcz\u00fckte belirlenen prosed\u00fcrler ve m\u00fczakereler yoluyla \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm araman\u0131n \u00f6nemini vurgulamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>\u00d6zet<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nBu makalede, Japonya’daki bir kumiai kaisha (\u5408\u540c\u4f1a\u793e) i\u00e7indeki ortaklar\u0131n haklar\u0131, \u00f6z yarar ve ortak yarar haklar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan kapsaml\u0131 bir \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kumiai kaisha’n\u0131n en b\u00fcy\u00fck cazibesi, teikan jichi no gensoku (\u5b9a\u6b3e\u81ea\u6cbb\u306e\u539f\u5247) yani t\u00fcz\u00fck \u00f6zerkli\u011fi ilkesi taraf\u0131ndan desteklenen i\u015fletme esnekli\u011findedir. Kar payla\u015f\u0131m y\u00f6ntemlerinden y\u00f6netim yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n tasar\u0131m\u0131na kadar, ortaklar kendi anla\u015fmalar\u0131yla \u015firketin yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 serbest\u00e7e tasarlayabilirler. Ancak bu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z de\u011fildir. Alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kat\u0131 mali kaynak d\u00fczenlemeleri ve i\u015fleri y\u00fcr\u00fctenlere kar\u015f\u0131 denetim hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gibi, Japon hukuku \u015firketin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 i\u015fleyi\u015fini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in \u00f6nemli \u00e7er\u00e7eveler olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi gibi, ortaklar aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisinin \u00e7\u00f6kmesi durumunda yasal \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmler zorluklar i\u00e7erebilir, bu nedenle en \u00f6nemli risk y\u00f6netimi, i\u015fe ba\u015flarken t\u00fcm ortaklar\u0131n kabul edece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k ve ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir t\u00fcz\u00fck olu\u015fturmakt\u0131r. T\u00fcz\u00fckte, her orta\u011f\u0131n hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, karar alma s\u00fcre\u00e7leri ve gelecekte olas\u0131 anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm y\u00f6ntemleri somut olarak yer almal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Monolith Hukuk B\u00fcrosu, kumiai kaisha’n\u0131n kurulu\u015fundan i\u015fletilmesine ve anla\u015fmazl\u0131k \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne kadar, yerli ve yabanc\u0131 bir\u00e7ok m\u00fc\u015fteriye geni\u015f bir yelpazede hukuki hizmetler sunmu\u015f bir ge\u00e7mi\u015fe sahiptir. B\u00fcromuzda, Japon avukatl\u0131k sertifikas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra yabanc\u0131 avukatl\u0131k sertifikalar\u0131na sahip \u0130ngilizce konu\u015fan uzmanlar da bulunmaktad\u0131r ve uluslararas\u0131 bir perspektiften, m\u00fc\u015fterilerin i\u015flerine en uygun y\u00f6neti\u015fim yap\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturmalar\u0131na destek olmaktad\u0131rlar. Bu makalede a\u00e7\u0131klanan gibi, ortaklar\u0131n haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin karma\u015f\u0131k sorunlar hakk\u0131nda uzman tavsiyesine ihtiya\u00e7 duyarsan\u0131z, l\u00fctfen b\u00fcromuza dan\u0131\u015f\u0131n.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
2006 y\u0131l\u0131nda (Heisei 18) y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren Japon \u015eirketler Kanunu’ndan bu yana, Godo Kaisha (LLC) kurulu\u015f kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve i\u015fletme esnekli\u011fi nedeniyle bir\u00e7ok i\u015fletmeci taraf\u0131ndan tercih edilen bir \u015fir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":74626,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[24,89],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74625"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74625"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74625\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":74643,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74625\/revisions\/74643"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}