| 關 鍵 詞： |
揭穿公司面紗原則；股東有限責任；否認公司法人格；反向揭穿公司面紗；公司法 |
| 中文摘要： |
股東有限責任制度是現代公司法制最重要的發明。在股東有限責任之下，股東對公司的責任僅限於其所投資之部分，股東個人無須對公司債權人負責。而公司具有獨立的法人格，使得公司與其股東之人格相分離，且兩者的財產亦分離獨立，公司可獨自為權利義務之主體。惟為避免股東有限責任與公司法人格遭到濫用，英美兩國公司法制遂發展出所謂的「揭穿公司面紗原則」。在承認公司具獨立法人格的基礎上，突破公司法人格獨立與股東有限責任之界線，針對特定個案，否認公司之法人格，進而責令公司股東對公司債權人負責。我國於 2013 年 1 月公司法修正時亦引進此一原則。本文將透過比較法的方式，探討英美兩國揭穿公司面紗原則之運用，並檢視我國現行規定之缺失，以作為我國未來改進之參考。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
piercing the corporate veil；limited liability；disregarding the corporate entity；reverse piercing the corporate veil；company law |
| 英文摘要： |
The limited liability for shareholders of a company is the greatest discovery of modern corporate law. For shareholders, this means that their liability for the company’s debts is limited to the amount they have paid. Further, a company is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders. It is capable of enjoying rights and of being subject to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its shareholders. In order to prevent the abuse of limited liability and the separate legal personality of the company, the U.K. and U.S. have developed the so-called “piercing the corporate veil.” Under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the court may set aside the company’s formality and hold an individual or shareholder responsible for the acts or debts of the company. The Taiwanese government introduces this doctrine by amending the Company Act in January 2013. This article will explore the practices of piercing the corporate veil in the U.K. and the U.S. and will analyze the current regulation in Taiwan through a comparative study.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、股東有限責任與公司法人格否認之法理基礎
參、英美立法例
一、英國
二、美國
三、小結
肆、我國引進「揭穿公司面紗原則」後之新局與挑戰
一、我國現行制度
二、分析與建議
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|