股東直接訴權之研究—以董事違反受託人義務為核心

A Study on the Shareholder Direct Action—Focusing on the Breach of Directors' Fiduciary Duties

林婉靜(Lin, Wan-Jing)

指導教授 ： 張心悌

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2014年)

摘要

公司治理之目標乃為追求公司營運的健全，在企業經營與所有分離的趨勢下，董事會為公司的經營決策機關，公司經營成敗掌握於董事會手中，為防止經營階層濫權，股東訴追機制即為不可或缺的重要配套措施。

我國公司法於民國90年11月12日修正公布第23條，繼受英美國家受託人義務之概念，以強化董事義務之內涵。然因我國公司法第23條第1項之文義限定為董事僅對公司負受託人義務，而不及於股東，如董事違反受託人義務，因董事、監察人間往往利益掛勾，董事並無可能對自己或其他董事、監察人提起訴訟；在內部監控機制中，股東雖然得依公司法第214條提起代表訴訟，但我國代表訴訟在要件設計上有嚴格之限制，往往造成股東訴追之不利。

因此，本文嘗試從美國法上股東直接訴訟與代表訴訟雙軌制為探討，將研究重點置於美國法直接訴訟制度得否於我國法下加以落實。在現行代表訴訟制度成效不彰的情況下，為糾舉董事不法行為，健全公司企業經營，本文認為法制上賦與股東完善的救濟機制有其必要性，可效仿美國法制度，提供股東兩種訴訟制度以資選擇適用，於代表訴訟外，股東就自己權利受損害亦可提起直接訴訟。是故，本文分別就董事所負受託人義務之對象及股東直接訴訟之依據提出修法建議，並就司法審查之准駁提出參考之方向，期能從股東直接訴訟制度之建構，落實股東訴追機制，完善公司治理。

關鍵字

股東訴訟 ； 直接訴訟 ； 代表訴訟 ； 受託人義務 ； 特別損害標準

並列摘要

The purpose of corporate governance was for a sound corporate governance framework, and since separating corporate ownership from corporate management was a trend now in the world, and the board of directors was in charge of making de-cisions more beneficial to management for a corporate, the board of directors was held liable for the consequences of the corporate's policies, actions, and failures to act. Therefore, in the prevention of the board of directors abusing his power, the mechanisms of a shareholder’s suit was important.
Article 23 of Company Act of Republic of China (Taiwan), amended on No-vember 12, 2001, was adopted the concept of fiduciary duties in common law. How-ever, since paragraph 1 of Article 23 of Company Act provided that directors owe their fiduciary obligations to the corporate, not to the shareholders, the directors wouldn’t file a lawsuit against himself or supervisor if he/she breached of fiduciary duty. In the mean time, although a derivative suit could be brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation under Article 214 of Company Act, the legal requirements of the a derivative suit were quite strict for the shareholder, and it was a big disadvantage to shareholders.
Therefore, the author did research into a shareholder’s direct suit and deriva-tive suit under American Law, and the possibility of adoption of these two lawsuits into Company Act of Taiwan. Consequently, the author recommends that it was nec-essary to well establish minority shareholder’s remedies, so it was better to establish a shareholder’s direct suit like American law under Article 23 of Company Act of Tai-wan. With the possibility for shareholders to file a direct suit against the wrongdoers, a better corporate governance will be promoted accordingly.

並列關鍵字

shareholder suit ； direct suit ； derivative suit ； fiduciary duties ； special injury

參考文獻

2. 最高法院90年度台上字第1721號民事判決。

1. 枋啟民，少數股東民事訴訟救濟制度之檢討，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2007年1月。

21. 張心悌，逐出少數股東－以資訊揭露義務與受託人義務為中心之美國法比較，政大法學評論，第123期， 2011年10月。

34. 游啓璋，公司內部人自己交易的控制，政大法學評論，第118期，2010年12月。

12. 周振鋒，論股東代表訴訟的變革方向－以美國法為研析基礎，政大法學評論，第115期，2010年6月。