經營判斷原則於實務上之應用

The Application of Business Judgment Rule in Judicial Practice

胡怡嬅(Hu,Yi-Hua)

指導教授 ： 廖正豪

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

經營判斷原則源起於英美法上民商實務概念，我國民事實務雖有若干判決引用，惟與英美法經營判斷原則之精神尚非完全契合。在民事事件尚有爭議情況下，卻已悄然擴張至刑事領域，主張以經營判斷原則來推論董事行為不受刑罰之箝制，然刑事案件上究竟得否適用此原則，攸關被告是否定罪論刑，不可不慎。

本文認為經營判斷原則雖適合用於民事個案，結構上為初次舉證責任分配的問題，以推定方式使原告股東發動第一次之舉證責任、避免少數股東濫訟，並無不妥，引入臺灣民事法規範中尚無太大扞格。民事訴訟原告固須就經營判斷原則積極要件與消極要件舉證推翻此一推定，然此些積極要件與消極要件未必該當刑法背信罪或特別刑事背信罪之構成要件，如與構成要件上具有共同性，檢察官固應負擔舉證責任證明之，倘非構成要件，似無必要要求檢察官舉證，以免擴散至爭點外、構成要件外之事實。

又刑事對於證據採認與構成要件之審查均較嚴格，現行法下檢察官若無法證明被告有罪，被告本受無罪之推定，已與經營判斷原則先推定董事行為符合積極要件、無消極要件所欲達之目的具有相同之功能，況刑法背信罪之主觀構成要件除須具備「故意」外，尚須具有為自己或第三人不法利益的意圖，惟並不處罰過失犯。是以，主觀上故意犯程度高於此原則下之重大過失，更遑論特別背信罪之主觀構成要件更是要認識相對應特別法之客觀構成要件。抑有進者，「經營判斷原則」一旦引入刑事訴訟程序中，恐有流於「幽靈抗辯」之列，倘法官聽信表面證據而不介入判斷，影響所致亦將使公平正義蒙上面紗，「經營判斷原則」亦淪為董事從事不法行為後被追訴時操控司法之工具。故本文認為「經營判斷原則」仍不適宜引入我國之刑事訴訟程序。

關鍵字

經營判斷原則 ； 受託義務 ； 注意義務 ； 忠實義務 ； 司法審查

並列摘要

Although few civil judgments of our court adopted the Business Judgment Rule which stemmed from civil practices of common laws, it may not fully compatible with our civil law system. Despite the controversial situation in civil cases, it has quietly spread out in criminal cases as defenses arguing that some acts of company directors do not subject to criminal punishments. In criminal cases, however, we cannot be more prudent about the question whether it is applicable or not, because the outcome concerns the conviction of defendants.

In the thesis I hold that, the Business Judgment Rule may be applicable and appropriate in civil cases on the distribution of burden of proof, namely, charging the plaintiffs/shareholders with initial burden of proof, so as to ward off unnecessary lawsuits from few shareholders. Thus, introducing the rule into the civil law system of Taiwan may not produce great conflicts. However, its standards of review, whether positive or negative, are not necessarily fully compatible to the requirements of the Offenses of Breach of Trust as regulated in the Criminal Code and other special criminal Acts. That is to say, even though the prosecutor should bear the burden of proof on the parts of it which are consistent with the offenses, when it comes to the parts which are not consistent, the prosecutor may bear inappropriate burden of proving facts which are not covered by the requirements of the alleged offenses as well as beyond the contested issues.

Besides, in criminal cases, the adoption of evidence and review of requirements of offenses are under more strict scrutiny, the defendants are presumed innocent if the prosecutors cannot prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus the function of standing criminal law is consistent to the function of Business Judgment Rule which presumes the acts of directors, if fitting its standards of review, not liable. Furthermore, regarding mens rea, the Offenses of Breach of Trust require an intention of obtaining illegal profits for offenders themselves or other parties and to do relevant acts on purpose, not including negligent acts. Thus, those intentional offenses are more severe than the gross negligence required by the Business Judgment Rule, not to mention that in special criminal Acts, mens rea includes knowledge of actus reus as regulated in those Acts. As regards the criminal procedure against directors who committed illegal acts, the Business Judgment Rule, which is easily used as an instrument to manipulate judicial authorities, if admissible in the procedure, may result in “Empty-Chair Defense” and shadow the fairness and justice when a judge accepts only superficial evidences without proper evaluation. Therefore, this thesis holds that it is not appropriate introducing the Business Judgment Rule into our criminal proceedings.

並列關鍵字

Business Judgment Rule ； Fiduciary Duty ； Duty of Care ； Duty of Loyalty ； Judicial Review

參考文獻

35. 楊敏華，兩岸上市公司獨立董事制度之研究，社團法人中華公司治理協會，2006年7月。

13. 林國彬，董事忠誠義務與司法審查標準之研究－以美國德拉瓦州公司法為主要範圍，政大法學評論第100期，2007年12月。

20. 黃銘傑，公司監控與監察人制度改革論—超越獨立董事之迷思，臺大法學論叢，第29卷第4期，2000年4月。

29. 陳冠宙、陳育成、陳雪如，影響上市公司網站資訊透明度因子之實證，會計與公司治理第二卷第一期，2005年6月。

5. 吳志強，經濟刑法之背信罪與特別背信罪的再建構，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年6月。