會計師簽證民事責任之研究

Research on CPA verification's civil liability

蕭萬龍(WAN-LUNG HSIAO)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2003年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200300437

摘要

論文提要
會計師所出具之簽證意見，乃係對於財務報告是否依一般公認會計原則編列，依一般公認審計準則查核後是否能允當表達公司經營成果及財務情形提出專業意見，其性質可認係專業知識判斷後之資訊提供。如從直接造成投資人損害之原因來看，損害之肇生多是因為公司經營者之判斷失當、不正行為或景氣之影響。無從介入公司經營決定之會計師，對於第三人所產生之損害，是否應由會計師與公司之經營者同負民事賠償責任，解釋上即不無疑義。若屬肯認，則其立於專業職業之資訊提供者之地位，所應承擔之民事責任，是否得與經營者有所區別，亦非不值進一步考量。然而，委任會計師進行財務報告之簽證、核閱，對於特定公司而言，可謂是法定的必要負擔。僅能由具有國家考試及格之會計師進行簽證業務，其職業可認受有法律的制度性保障。為對應此種受到法律保障之利益，對於會計師所應承擔之責任予以加重，似自不能謂全然不具正當性。此外，財務報表之編撰不僅影響公司及股東之權益，對於潛在股東及金融機構在決定是否出資或是否進行貸款時，亦有重要的意義。此時，會計師財務報告意見顯然可認為具有公益之特徵。以此點而言，會計師民事責任是否應予以加重，亦非不值考量。本文之討論，即以此兩種面向為衡量之中心。
對於會計師適度的追究民事責任，應可認有利於增進會計師執業時之注意程度。然而過於沉重的民事賠償制度，則將使會計師畏於從事高風險客戶之審計甚至使審計市場人材流失，此種想像亦非單純的恫嚇之辭。此時即應先就會計師簽證制度對於證券市場之意義作一釐清，以決定民事賠償責任範圍是否因為可能動搖審計制度而應有所退縮。本文於第二章即先對此先進行探討，同時並介紹簽證制度本質上所存在之風險，以利嗣後在討論請求權基礎時，對於行為人主觀的歸責能較為正確地掌握。
在檢討請求權之要件後，下一個問題即是何人應為損害賠償責任之主體。簡言之，會計師事務所、會計師事務所非該當案件之會計師，對於該當案件之簽證會計師所造成之民事賠償責任是否應予負責？解決之道乃在於對於聯合會計師事務所之性質有一清楚之界定。又何以聯合會計師事務所不能採取有限責任組織？依會計師法修正草案之規定，是否能有效解決此爭議？本文亦同時提出個人之看法。相同的，何種範圍之第三人得對於會計師提起民事賠償請求，於討論民事賠償責任之請求權後自無從棄而不論。最後則探討會計師責任保險制度與會計師民事賠償責任制度之關聯，據以探究採取會計師責任保險制度之妥當性。

關鍵字

會計師責任保險 ； 會計師 ； 民事責任 ； 一般公認審計準則

並列摘要

A certified (public) accountant present a financial report’s verified statements base on generally accepted accounting principles（GAAP） and generally accepted auditing standards（GAAS） that can reflect a company’s operation and financial status, thus regard as a professional diagnosis that provide information to others. When we see from the direct causes that result in the investors loses, most of them are due to the person who runs the company made a wrong decision, improper judgment or by market influence. An accountant that has no position in making company policies has no direct responsibility on creating the company’s profit or lost, should he bear civil law duty together with the company’s manager for a third party’s damages, if any, it seems to be a dubious interpretation.
If the answer is positive, the civil law duty between the position of a professional diagnosis that only provide information and the position of a company’s manager that should bear full responsibility for the business should be differentiate and should be more considered. However, to authorize an accountant to certify and audit a financial report is a statutory stated, only those who passed the national accountant examination can carry out the job, their profession shall be considered as ensure systematical by law; and thus, due to the interest guaranteed by law, their duty should be increase shall not consider as improper. Furthermore, a financial report of a company may effects the company and shareholders rights, and also important for the potential shareholders and financial institution to decide whether they want to invest or provide loan to the company. And now, an accountant’s financial report’s statement shall be symbolized as some kind of public welfare. From this point of view, to reinforce civil law duty of an accountant should be considered. These two points will be the main discussion of this article.
To apply a moderate civil law sanction to an accountant, will increase their attention on his duty. But, if the compensation is too heavy, accountant may avoid handling high risk cases or will lead to a brain drain in this field. This is not a threaten statement. And now we should clarified the effect of accountant’s certification on share market to determine civil law responsibility have to give way or not for it may influence the audit system. Chapter 2 of this article will discuss on this issue and at the same time will discuss about this kind of certify system naturally has it risk, this is better as when it comes to discuss about claims, will be more proper to command on actor’s subjective responsibility.
After reviewing the conditions of claims, the next question is who will be the main person who responsible for the loses. In a word, accountancy firm is not the person who in charge of the case, should it bear the civil law duty that cause by its accountant? The way to solve the problem is to clarify characters of an united accountancy firm. Why is it an united accountancy firm not subject to limited organization? Will this disputation be solved by the accountant law protocol? I will address my point of view in this article. Similarly, what kind of third party eligible to request for compensation on accountant? Will be discussed later.
Lastly, there will be discussion on relation between accountant insurance duty system and civil law duty system so as to investigate the advantages and disadvantages on adopting accountant insurance duty’s system.

並列關鍵字

GAAS ； CPA ； civil law responsibility ； accountant insurance duty

參考文獻

陳錦隆　會計師查核簽證財務報表之民事責任（上）　會計研究月刊第一七一期

財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會　審計準則公報第一號至第三十八號

陳聰富 侵權行為法上之因果關係 臺大法學論叢 第二十九卷第二期

參考書目

書籍