Director's Liability toward the Corporation for Breaching the Duty of Care: Comment on the Current Taiwanese Law from a Comparative Law Study on Case and Statutory Laws in the United States

公司董事因違反其注意義務對公司之責任：由比較法之觀點分析美國判例和制訂法對當前台灣法律規定之評論

楊君毅(Chiunyi Yang)

《致理法學》 1期 (2007/03) Pp. 185-246

摘要

Liabilities of directors encompass their liabilities toward the corporation and those toward a party other than the corporation, with the former being the subject of this article. With respect to directorial liabilities arising out of the director's conduct toward a party other than the corporation, the rules of general tort law in Taiwan prescribe the director's liability toward such a party, when the directorial conduct giving rise to the liability was not associated with the director's employment responsibilities; whereas, if the directorial conduct is characterized as within the director's scope of employment, the director may be held to a ＂joint and several liability＂ with the corporation pursuant to Section 28 of the General Principles of the Civil Code or, alternatively, Paragraph 2, Section 23 of the Corporation Act prescribing directorial liability arising out of violation of the statute. With respect to the current rules of law in Taiwan regarding liabilities of directors relating to directorial conducts within the scope of the director's employment, it appears incompatible with the prevailing legal theory of Anglo-American Law that directors, merely an alter ego of the corporation when acting in a capacity as agent or representative of the corporation, should be insulated from any liability attributed to the directorial conducts causing damages to a party other than the corporation. In addition, this article does not focus on the issue of whether a corporation is entitled to seek compensation from the director whose conduct caused the corporation to incur liability toward the other party. Similarly, this article does not attempt to stress the issue in which liability of the corporation toward the government agency results from the director's conduct, giving rise to the corporation's right of reimburesement from the director for its loss. Moreover, it is important to note that directorial liabilities toward the corporation may arise in circumstances in which the director does not cause the corporation responsible to the damage of a third party; but instead are attributed to the director's inattentiveness of corporate affairs or uninformed decision-making process. In this regard, the Corporation Act of Taiwan, except in a few Sections prescribing directorial liabilities arising in certain fact-specific circumstances, leaving unregulated directorial liabilities toward the corporation as they occurs in other garden-varieties of situations (i.e., the general liability of the director toward the corporation). Nevertheless, in the wake of the major Amendment of the Corporation Act of Taiwan in the year of 2001, it includes a provision in the First Paragraph of Section 23 (＂Section 23 (1)＂), stating, among other things, that ＂Directors are responsible to losses of the corporation for breaching the directors' duty of care toward the corporation,＂ which has since been interpreted by the majority of commentators as prescribing the general liability of the director toward the corporation. Unfortunately, it have been scant judicial precedents explaining the extent of Section 23 (1) as it would be applied to each case with distinct factual patterns. Therefore, courts as well as commentators have been perplexed regarding the utilities of Section 23 (1). From a comparative law perspective, this article endeavors to synthesize case and statutory rules of law in the United States concerning liabilities of directors toward the corporation arising in circumstances relevant to the perceived ambit of Section 23 (1). Specifically, this article will stress the implications, both positive and negative, from imposing on directors such. liabilities, as well as the responses of the judiciaries and legislatures in various States of the United States in balancing directorial accountability and meritorious business judgment on the other hand.

關鍵字

Director ； Corporation ； Damage ； Duty of Care ； Business Judgment

並列摘要

公司董事之責任可分為對第三人和對公司本身之責任，只有後者為本文所討論的主題。依我國目前法律規定，公司董事之行為如導致第三人受損，如其行為與其職務的行使無關，其責任須依據民法上侵權行為之規定來論斷；但如其行為與其職務的行使有關，則必須依據民法第28條，或依公司法第23條第二項，於其行為違反法令時，與公司負「連帶賠償責任」。但如董事是因執行職務而造成對第三人的損害，此時董事只是公司的代理或代表人，其行為的一切法律效果應歸屬於公司，包括對第三人的責任；要求公司與董事於此時負連帶賠償責任似乎與法理不合，美國法制也僅要求公司必須對受損之第三人單獨負責而已。另本文也不針對公司是否有權對董事求償因其必須對第三人負民事責任之損失的情形加以討論。相同的，如董事依其職務上行為導致公司必須對主管機關負行政責任，也會產生如前述情形，及公司單獨對主管機關必須負的處罰責任與對董事的求償權；本文也不針對此種情形加以討論。董事對公司所負責任可能與公司對第三者的責任完全無關，而是基於其本身職務行使的怠惰，或錯誤的決策。關於此點，除了公司法總則中一些零星條文針對特殊情形（公司法第9條第二項、13條第五項、15條第二項和34條）賦予董事此項責任外，我國公司法並無針對董事對公司責任作一般性規範；但當2001年公司法大幅增修時，於第23條第一項加入所謂「公司負責人（包括董事）應盡善良管理人之注意義務，如違反致公司受有損害者，負損害賠償責任」之文句，大多數公司法學者將之解讀為公司董事行為導致公司受損之一般民事責任的根據。遺憾的是，自修法以來，司法機關並未對此攸關董事責任重大變更的條文做出任何解釋，造成其在適用上的困擾，大多數人也不能體察董事此項對公司責任的影響力。本文試圖從比較法觀點，即美國成文和判例法觀點，提供相關參考資料，包括從正反兩方面討論賦予董事此項責任之妥當性，和在美國成文及判例法對董事此項責任的妥協方案。

並列關鍵字

董事 ； 公司 ； 損害賠償 ； 注意義務 ； 企業經營決策