異議股東股份收買請求權與價格裁定程序新思維

The New Perspective on The Dissenting Shareholder’s Appraisal Right and Proposed Appraisal Procedures

高肇佑(Chou-Yu Kao)

指導教授 ： 劉連煜

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2014年)

摘要

本文主要探討異議股東收買請求權制度，包含實體法上功能與運作，並且從此出發，一併檢視程序法上所面臨之難題，配合此次企業併購法修正草案，作一通盤性的研究。
蓋此制度之實體部分乃繼受自英美法系；而我國民事程序法（包含民事訴訟法、非訟事件法）則深受日、德兩國立法例之影響。而不同法系間在制度之融合上本有困難之處，本文嘗試先從實體法上學理之探討，包含制度的功能、法理以及行使，配合本次修正草案大量參酌美國模範商業公司法、德拉瓦州公司法以及日本公司法，故本文即以此三種立法例之特色加以分析比較，並最後以我國法制關於股份收買請求權之行使程序，包含現行法與修正草案之比較。
而於程序法面向，本文以現實中程序之時序流程為軸線，從法院裁定程序之開啟、進行至終結、救濟。而我國價格裁定程序係規定於非訟程序，而與一般大家熟悉之民事訴訟程序不同，故於本文先淺介非訟程序之法理、及其意義與類型，為價格裁定程序作適當之分類。並介紹此等事件程序標的之開啟、管轄以至於公司及股東於程序中之主體地位到修正草案中之變革，而現行法院認定股份價格之方法，過度受限於法條文義外，也因為裁定程序常伴隨著多數股東分別聲請之現象，而新法第十二條也嘗試修正此項缺失。此外，應著眼於其特有的職權特性，且側重關係人於程序主體權之保障。本文亦一併討論價格裁定之證據調查，以及股份收買事件事證偏在之現象與關係人一般化促進訴訟義務與事案解明義務。而程序的終結形式可能有基於關係人之意思，如撤回、捨棄、認諾及和解等；亦有基於法院之裁定而終結者。且關於裁定效力為何，我國學說及事物見解亦有爭議，而裁定後，關於針對裁定之救濟，及得提起救濟之主體、要件等，以現行非訟事件法及學理上可能之解釋，為全面性之討論。
文末則將上述討論的結果予以歸納，並分析此次的企業併購法修正，本文認為雖然此次修法立意良善，但卻仍有以下缺憾，提出若干修正評析與建議：一、實務評估「公平價格」方法過於僵化，二、資訊公開與文書提出制度不足，三、實務並未普遍接受非訟與訴訟法理交錯適用論，四、股份收買請求權程序並未全面修正或準用。

關鍵字

公平價格 ； 非訟裁定 ； 逐出合併 ； 程序法理交錯適用論 ； 非訟程序 ； 價格裁定程序 ； 異議股東股份收買請求權 ； 程序保障 ； 既判力

並列摘要

This paper mainly discusses the dissenting shareholder’s appraisal right, including its function and operation in substantive law, and examines difficulties in procedural law on this basis. This paper is a comprehensive study in coordination with the draft amendment to the Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act.
The substantive part of this right was influenced by the lawsystem of England, the U.S. and France, while the Civil Procedure Law (including contentious procedure and non-contentious procedure) is deeply influenced by the law system of Japan and Germany. The merging of different law systems will inevitably encounter difficulties. This paper first attempts an academic interpretation of substantive law, including system functions, jurisprudence, and right exercise. The draft amendment was drawn up after extensively referring to the U.S. Model Business Corporation, Delaware General Corporation Law, and Japan’s Company Law. Therefore, this paper analyzes and compares these three instances of legislation, and finally compares the procedure for exercising the dissenting shareholder’s appraisal right in Taiwan’s Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act, including the current act and draft amendment.
From the perspective of procedural law, this paper uses the timeline of the actual procedure from the judicially declared opening, ongoing, to conclusion and remedy. Appraisal procedures are non-contentious procedures in Taiwan and different from civil procedures that most people are familiar with. Hence, this paper first introduces the legal principles, meaning and types of non-contentious procedures, so as to suitably classify proposed appraisal procedures. This paper also introduces the opening and jurisdiction of procedures and changes of the company and shareholder’s subject positions in procedures in the draft amendment. The current appraisal procedures of the court are excessively limited by the meaning of provisions, and procedures often accompanied by separate claims by the majority of shareholders, in which the amendment to article 12 attempts to fix this issue. Furthermore, even though appraisal procedures are non-contentious procedures, stakeholders should still be given due process, and this paper also discusses the evidence investigation procedure for appraisal. A procedure may be concluded based on the stakeholder’s wishes, e.g. withdraw, waive, acknowledge, or settle, or by a court ruling. The effects of court rulings remains in dispute, and this paper carries out a comprehensive discussion of the possible interpretations of the subject and important conditions for remedy after rulings based on the Law of Civil Non-proceedings and from an academic viewpoint.
Finally, this paper summarizes the results of the abovementioned discussions and analyzes the amendment to the Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act. This paper believes that the amendment has good intentions, but still has the following drawbacks, and proposes several recommendations for revision: 1. The method used in practice for evaluating“fair value” is too rigid; 2. The information disclosure and document production system is inadequate; 3. The theory alteration between procedural principle is not widely accepted in practice; 4. The procedure for dissenting shareholder’s appraisal right did not undergo a full revision or the necessary modifications.

並列關鍵字

non-contentious ruling ； freeze-out merger ； the theory alteration between procedural principle ； non-contentious procedures ； proposed appraisal procedures ； the dissenting shareholder’s appraisal right ； fair value ； procedural protection ； binding force

參考文獻

20.姜世明，非訟程序中之嚴格證明與自由證明－評最高法院九三年臺抗字第四二號民事裁定，臺灣法學雜誌第113期，2008年10月。

3.林宏鎰，論非訟裁定之確定力，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2012年9月。

48.游啟璋，現金逐出合併時少數股東的股份收買請求權，政大法學評論第136期，2014年3月。

32.許士宦，文書之開示與秘匿，臺大法學論叢第32卷第4期，2003年7月。

22.駱永家，民事訴訟法（Ｉ），三民出版，1999年3月。