論我國股份有限公司之資產分派與發還—資本三原則之檢討

A Study on Legal Capital Restrictions on Corporate Distributions to Shareholders

謝昀哲(Yun-Che Hsieh)

指導教授 ： 曾宛如

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.03362

摘要

有限責任為現代各國公司法之基礎，對國家之經濟發展有重大影響。由於有限責任將公司破產的部分風險由股東移轉予債權人承擔，引發公司股東與債權人間就公司資產分配的利益衝突。為此，以歐盟為主的大陸法系發展出資本三原則的概念，並為我國所繼受。然資本三原則近年來於歐盟及英國已開始遭到反省與批判，間接促使本文探討我國資本三原則之規定得否有效處理股東與債權人之利益衝突。
本文透過與外國立法例之比較，借鏡歐盟第二號指令、英國公司法、美國公司法，並對資本三原則之規定進行分析後，認為我國現行資本三原則之規定不僅無法有效保障公司債權人，且並非符合經濟效率的制度，對公司、公司債權人及整體社會帶來不必要的成本。比較採取資本三原則的大陸法系與捨棄此一制度的美國公司法，反應在此不同立法哲學背後的是「規則」與「標準」的立法選擇，前者明確而欠缺彈性，後者則剛好相反。
在改革方向上，短期而言，可參考同樣採取資本三原則之英國公司法，就我國資本三原則的具體規定作出修正（放寬）。長期而言，可考慮仿效美國模範公司法，澈底廢止資本三原則，將債權人保護委由契約法或公司經營者在破產法下之義務，使公司財務運用之效率最大化。惟我國屬採取成文法的大陸法系國家，與英美法系仍有不同，應隨時注意本土法制環境之發展是否足以因應資本三原則的鬆綁，以避免公司債權人保護之立法目的無法達成。

關鍵字

資本三原則 ； 法定資本制 ； 資本維持原則 ； 盈餘分配 ； 股份買回 ； 減資 ； 財務援助 ； 債權人 ； 償債能力標準

並列摘要

Limited liability is a fundamental principle of corporate law and has significant influence to the development of economy. Because limited liability partially transfers the risk of bankruptcy from shareholders to creditors, it results in the conflict that exists between creditors and shareholders regarding how to allocate a company’s capital. To regulate the conflict, European legal system developed the notion of legal capital (in Taiwan also known as “the three legal capital doctrines”) which has been introduced to Taiwan. However, in recent years, legal capital is being under review in European Unions and United Kingdom. As a result, this paper asks whether legal capital rules in Taiwan can be understood as an efficient instrument to balance the shareholder-creditor conflict.
This paper explores the fundamental differences between Taiwan, European Union, United Kingdom and United States approaches to the conflict between fixed and equity claimants and analyses the provisions on legal capital in Taiwan’s Company Law, arguing that our current approach provides little or no benefit to corporate creditors and the rules create extra costs for shareholders, certain creditors, and society as a whole. Whether adopting legal capital identifies a marked divergence between Continental Europe, which prefers the rules-based strategy to the standards strategy, and the US, in whose State corporate laws on creditor protection are noticeable largely by their absence and where creditors' interests are addressed through a standards-based strategy.
As to the direction of reform, this paper suggests two approaches to the reform of legal capital in Taiwan. For the short term, the first approach is an evolution of the current regime to a more simplified and modern capital regime based on the Companies Act 2006 of UK. For the long term, the second approach is roughly based on the experience of US jurisdictions that have passed statutes based on the Model Business Corporations Act, which leave creditor protection to contract law, and insolvency provisions in the event of the company’s insolvency. However, since our legal system is different from United Kingdom and United States, we should still notice the difficulties that to such changes would imply.

並列關鍵字

the three legal capital doctrines ； legal capital ； distribution ； acquisition by the company of its of own shares ； the reduction of capital ； financial assistance ； creditor ； solvency test

參考文獻

24. 曾宛如，有限責任與債權人之保護，臺大法學論叢，第35卷第5期，2006年9月。

27. 黃銘傑，自己股份買回與公司法－財政部「庫藏股」制度草案的問題與盲點，臺大法學論叢，第28卷第1期，1998年10月。

5. 王泰銓，歐洲公司法導論，台大法學論叢，第25卷第1期，1995年10月。

20. 柯菊，禁止公司取得自己股份緩和論之研究，臺大法學論叢，第24卷第2期，1995年6月。

6. 朱德芳，論公開發行公司之資本結構重組與公司治理：以形式減資與私募增資為核心，台大法學論叢，第37卷2期，2008年6月。