公司法第一百七十八條股東表決權排除之實證研究

Abstract

我國公司法第178條係關於股東會表決權排除制度之規定，要求與股東會特定決議事項有利害關係之股東，應於該決議事項中迴避表決，其立法意旨在避免有利害關係之股東因私利忘公益而不能為公正之判斷，冀望藉由此種事前限制特定股東行使表決權之規定，以維持股東會決議之公平。然而，股東表決權之行使係股東參與公司經營的重要途徑，亦屬股東權之核心，此種限制股東表決權行使的規定對股東權益影響甚大，於適用上亦引發諸多疑慮。學者多認為公司法第178條，擁有構成要件抽象模糊、悖於股東持股之原有動機、利害關係人範圍難以認定、違反多數決原則等重大缺失，建議刪除該項規定。然而，公司法第178條自民國55年修正以來，不僅未見任何刪除的跡象，在日本修法將此種事前限制表決權制度刪除後改成事後救濟制後，成為我國獨特的立法模式。因此，公司法第178條於我國實務適用上是否具特殊性，即有觀察之必要。 公司法第178條規定不僅適用於股東會決議，於董事會決議亦有適用。本論文以股東會決議為研究範圍，以最高法院、台灣高等法院與台北地方法院作成之相關裁判為觀察對象，進行公司法第178條適用於股東會決議之實證研究。觀察重點包含法院對公司法第178條的解釋與適用，整理常見的利益衝突態樣與法院的認定方式，以及實務與學說見解的比較分析等，希望透過上述實證結果的呈現，為公司法第178條的適用困境，提供另一種思考方向與立法建議。

Article 178 of Company Act regulates the exclusion of shareholders’ voting right. Article 178 requires that when (1) a shareholder who has a personal interest in the matter under discussion at a meeting, and (2) the involved conflict may impair the interest of the company, the conflicted shareholder shall not vote on his shares nor cast a vote on behalf of other shareholders. The purpose of Article 178 is to prevent a shareholder from voting out of his personal interest, which may impair the interest of the company as a whole. However, such restriction would substantially reduce a shareholder’s influence over shareholder meeting, and inevitably arouse some worries about its application. Scholars point out that the current Article 178 has several flaws, which include the uncertainty in its substantive requirements, the ignorance of the inherent self-interest purpose of a shareholder, and its conflict with majority rule. Some scholars advocate abolishment of Article 178. In the sense, Article 178 deserves a more careful observation in its practice. The thesis conducts an empirical study on court opinions discussing Article 178. The observation surveys the judgments made by Supreme Court, Taiwan High Court (its four branches are not included) and Taipei District Court in the past twelve years. The study mainly focuses on the courts’ interpretation and application of Article 178 and the different types of interest-conflicts. After the survey, this thesis compares court opinions with scholars’ critics and in turns presents a normative understanding about the function of Article 178.