我國公司法起初無揭穿公司面紗原則(Piercing the Corporate Veil)之立法,故對於濫用法人格之股東,債權人通常求償無門。民國102年1月30日我國增訂公司法第154條第2項,將揭穿公司面紗原則明文化,而如何適用該條文即成為重要的關鍵。首先,本文期望觀察法院如何適用與解釋公司法第154條第2項。另一方面,參酌修法前我國法院對於揭穿公司面紗之見解,比較修法前後我國法院見解之差異。再者,藉由法院見解整理我國目前適用公司法第154條第2項之困難。最後,參酌英國及美國揭穿公司面紗原則發展之情形,以期補足我國於公司法第154條第2項適用上之缺失。
Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil had not been established in Taiwan before 2013. It was a common reason why creditors of the corporations were having difficulties in requiring stockholders who abused the corporate legal personality to compensate. The Legislature in Taiwan amended Section 2 of Article 154 of the Company Act and adopted the doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in January 30, 2013. However, the key is to figure out the application of this amendment. Firstly, I need to observe how courts in Taiwan apply and interpret Section 2 of Article 154 of the Company Act. Secondly, I will look into the opinions of the courts regarding the doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil before the amendment in 2013, and compare them to the court opinions afterwards. Further, by summarizing the court opinions before and after the amendment, I will explore the difficulties of applying Section 2 of Article 154 of the Company Act nowadays. Lastly, I expect to point out the deficiencies of application of this amendment and propose some ways to help correct the deficiencies by referring to some cases and academic research papers regarding the doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the U.S. and UK.