公司財務惡化狀態下董事對公司債權人之責任

Research on Directors’ Duty to Creditors upon Corporate Insolvency

林思沛(Szu-Pei Lin)

指導教授 ： 蔡英欣

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.10073

摘要

本論文以公司財務惡化狀態下，董事對公司債權人之責任為焦點，討論公司面臨債務超過或支付不能之財務困境之際，公司治理之建構與法制上保護債權人機制之設立。本文以文獻學說、實務見解之整理與法學論證分析為基礎，輔以經濟學之觀點進行研究，並透過日本法、英國法與美國法之比較法研析，試圖細緻化公司財務惡化之際董事、股東與債權人間之利害關係，並重新反省我國法制中對於公司財務困境下董事對債權人責任之制度建構。
公司於債務超過或支付不能之財務惡化狀態，股東與債權人之利害衝突加劇，股東有限責任原則與股東利益最大化原則已面臨修正之需求，如何於法制上建構保護債權人之機制遂成為重要課題，其中應受到關注之焦點之一即為作為事後規範之董事對公司債權人的責任。
首先，本文於論文第三章對於臺灣現行民法、公司法與債務清理法草案中所規定之董事對債權人之責任為一整合分析。其中，臺灣民法第35條第1項與公司法第211條第2項訂有強制董事聲請宣告公司破產之義務，而民法第35條第2項則規定董事過失未履行該義務時須對債權人負擔損害賠償責任。本文以為強制董事聲請宣告破產制度無法確實符合個別公司之最大利益且恐亦忽略債權之異質性，故於考量董事業務經營權限之前提下，本文主張廢除強制董事聲請宣告公司破產義務，且依附於該制度而存在之民法第35條第2項亦應一併刪除。
再者，本文亦將規範董事對第三人責任之公司法第23條第2項解釋為特殊侵權行為規範，並主張此規範對於現行法下規定董事對債權人責任之民法第35條第2項發揮一補遺作用。此外，當公司進入破產程序後，債務清理法草案第174條亦訂有董事對全體債權人20%債權額之補足責任，本文透過對該條文之要件解釋、法律性質與法人債務清理程序設立宗旨之關聯分析後，主張該條文存有定位不明、要件設定之爭議餘地，故恐需要更加詳盡之立法理由加以說明與補充。
本文為由公司財務惡化狀態下董事、股東與債權人之利害衝突，而重新省思董事對公司債權人之責任建構，故分別於論文第四章與第五章針對日本法、英國法與美國法之相關制度為一整合介紹，最後再與臺灣法制作一比較、對照。對於日本公司法第429條第1項所規定之董事對第三人之責任，本文主張因日本法並未特別設有董事對債權人之責任，故日本學說與實務對於該條文之法律性質與要件解釋呈現眾說紛紜之情狀。因此，本文認為即使我國制度設立初始可能參考部分日本法制，亦不得強將日本實務對公司法第429條第1項之見解附加於臺灣法中董事對第三人責任之解釋之上。
此外，針對特別注重董事經營裁量權限與無擔保債權人權益保障之英國不法交易制度，本文認為應得作為我國考量廢除強制董事聲請宣告破產義務與董事對債權人責任制度建構之重要參考。又以經濟學之觀點分析公司財務正常與公司財務惡化狀態下公司利害關係人間之利害衝突，本文主張應得參考美國德拉瓦州判決，肯認當公司處於債務超過或支付不能之財務困境，股東利益最大化已不再代表公司利益最大化，故基於合理經濟人之觀點，作為此時最適於擔任公司剩餘財產請求權人之債權人，應成為董事受任人義務之負責對象。準此，若一併考量董事對債權人負擔受任人義務與債權異質性之特色，本文主張或得參考英國不法交易制度而於我國公司法設立由非自願性債權人或未獲足額擔保之債權人對董事提起受任人義務違反之代位訴訟之可行性。
再者，本文亦認為董事對債權人之責任若要確實發揮保護債權人權益之法律效果，吾人亦應一併檢討我國法制中債權人取得公司財務資訊之完善程度，於債權人資訊取得權與董事對債權人之責任的制度建構配合下，我國公司財務惡化之際，公司治理機制與債權人保護措施始有更加完備之可能性。

關鍵字

強制聲請宣告破產制度 ； 債務超過 ； 支付不能 ； 受任人義務 ； 債權之異質性 ； 剩餘財產請求權人 ； 代位訴訟

並列摘要

This thesis focuses on directors’ duty to creditors upon corporate insolvency while attempting to discuss the issues of corporate governance and creditors’ protection when a firm is in distress. Based on the research result of academic papers and court decisions in Taiwan, the thesis further explores these issues from an economical and comparative law perspective, in order to specify the relationship between directors, shareholders and creditors as well as reconsidering Taiwan’s legal systems providing directors’ duty to creditors upon corporate insolvency.
When a firm is not able to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business or a firm’s total assets are less than the sum of its total liabilities, the conflict between shareholders and creditors become acute. To amend the principle of limited liabilities and shareholder primacy theory, how to establish proper systems of creditors’ protection, such as directors’ duty to creditors upon corporate insolvency is viewed as an important subject.
In Chapter III, this thesis explores the legal systems providing directors’ duty to creditors in Taiwan’s Civil Code, Company Act and the draft of Insolvency Law. On account of respective corporation’s different financial circumstance and creditor’s heterogeneity, the thesis argues that directors’ duty of applying to the court for the declaration of bankruptcy suffers fatal theoretical and practical infirmities. Therefore, Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code associated with that duty might be also in need of revision or removal.
Besides, the thesis argues that Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan’s Company Act providing directors’ duty to any other person should be defined as a type of tort liability and it might fill the gap which other statutes could not deal with. Moreover, when a firm has gone into insolvent liquidation, directors’ duty to compensate for the 20% of creditors’ right provided in Article 174 of the draft of Insolvency Law is believed to face theoretical defects in the definition, elements and the relationship with the Insolvency Law. Therefore, further study might be needed to legitimize this article.
In Chapter IV and V, the thesis reviews the development of related legal systems under comparative laws such as Japan, United Kingdom and United States. With respect to directors’ duty to any other person pursuant to Article 429, Paragraph 1 of Japan’s Companies Act, based on the extremely divergent points of view stated by Japanese academics and court decisions due to lack of specific article dealing with directors’ duty to creditors under Japan’s law, it is improper to apply Japan’s supreme court decision directly to the interpretation of Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan’s Company Act providing directors’ duty to any other person without further consideration.
Moreover, with respect to the wrongful trading of Britain’s Insolvency Act 1986, the thesis views it as a great model of paying respects to directors’ exercise of control and management as well as the protection of unsecured creditors. In addition, considering the acute conflict between stakeholders upon corporate insolvency from the perspective of economics such as homo economicus, the thesis contends that shareholder primacy theory is no longer prevalent and directors owe fiduciary duty to creditors who become residual claimants just as argued by the Delaware Court. Therefore, for imposing fiduciary duty to creditors on directors when a firm is insolvent and the feature of creditor’s heterogeneity, the thesis argues for the feasibility and legitimacy of derivative suit conducted by creditors provided in Taiwan’s Company Act.
Furthermore, in order to let derivative suit function well, the thesis also contends that creditors’ accessibility to a firm’s financial materials should be secured as well. By protecting creditors’ rights to acquire corporate business materials, directors’ duty to creditors could work effectively to protect creditors’ right upon corporate insolvency.

並列關鍵字

directors’ duty of applying to the court for the declaration of bankruptcy ； insolvency ； fiduciary duty ； residual claimant ； derivative suit

參考文獻

24. 賴英照，公司法論文集，1994年3月，財團法人中華民國證券市場發展基金會。

6. 楊岳平，論我國企業併購法制與利害關係人之保護─由公司社會責任理論出發，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2010年6月。

8. 吳光陸，破產法問題之研究（上），法令月刊第42卷第6期，頁15以下，1991年6月。

12. 邵慶平，董事受託義務內涵與類型的再思考—從監督義務與守法義務的比較研究出發，臺北大學法學論叢第66期，頁34以下，2008年6月。

20. 曾宛如，有限責任與債權人之保護，國立臺灣大學法學論叢第35卷第5期，頁146以下，2006年9月。