| 關 鍵 詞： |
侵權行為；法人責任；負責人責任；財報不實；次順位債務人；補充責任 |
| 中文摘要： |
關於法人責任之議題，於刑法、行政法與民法，對法人之存在、性質及法人行為之體認，於客觀事實、理論上及法律層面，均有許多共通處。最高法院認為，公司法第 23 條第 2 項及民法第 28 條法人侵權行為責任，仍須以法人之代表權人因執行職務而侵害他人之權利，符合民法侵權行為之要件時，始能成立。另外，最高法院認為法人亦可能獨立擔負民法第 184 條之侵權行為責任。本文主要討論法人之侵權責任，以財報不實為例，根據現行證交法第 20 條之 1 之規定，倘法人負絕對責任與全部責任，將造成故意造成財報不實者無須負主要責任之不公平結果。本文希望能思考於賠償責任之順位，於不損及受害人求償權益之前提下，是否能於學理上創造次順位債務人之概念，使法人於特定情形負補充責任，以落實故意實際行為人負主要責任與第一順位責任之責任原則。本文建議，基於責任原則並輔以保護受害人與維護社會法益防止侵權行為之發生，可以思考建構於侵權行為賠償責任之次順位債務人地位，負法人補充賠償責任。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Torts；Corporate Responsibility；Responsible Person Liability；Fraudulent Financial Statement (Accounting Fraud)；Subordinated Debtor；Supplementary Liability |
| 英文摘要： |
A legal entity has a separate personality from its individual members. Similar theories and arguments regarding legal persons’ liabilities are shared in criminal, administrative, and civil law. The Supreme Court has taken the position that, to hold a legal person liable, pursuant to Article 23, Paragraph II of the Companies Act and Article 28 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must prove that the actions of the responsible or representative person must have met all the elements of torts which hold the legal entity liable for its tortious actions. The Supreme Court also confirmed that a legal person can be independently liable under Article 184 of the Civil Code. This article primarily discusses the tort liabilities of legal persons. Using the examples of fraudulent financial statements, pursuant to Article 20-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, if the issuer (company) is held strictly liable for the entire tort liabilities, it may result in the possible escape of liability of the individual wrongdoers who intentionally cause the accounting fraud. This article suggests reforming the current liability regime by creating a subordinated-debtor status for the issuer if the wrongdoers incurred investors' damages due to the fraudulent financial statements. Those who intentionally cause the fraudulent financial statements shall bear the primary liability, and the issuer shall be liable after the creditors have sought payment from the primary tortfeasors and are not satisfied.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、導論
貳、我國法人責任規範之樣貌
一、法人之刑事責任
二、法人之行政責任
三、法人之侵權責任
參、公司法人究責之理論基礎與爭辯
一、法人人格之重要性
二、公司機關與代表人之行為與公司行為
三、法人之獨立侵權行為責任：最高法院 108 年度台上字第 2035 號判決原理之探討
肆、法人擔任次順位債務人負補充責任可行性之初探
一、構想之提出
二、法人與實際為侵權行為人之責任關係
三、建構法人補充責任可行性之分析
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|