論股東新股認購權於我國司法判決之實踐－－兼評臺灣高等法院100年度重上字第176號判決

The Study of Judicial Decisions Related to Shareholders’ Pre-emptive Right

我國雖有股東新股認購權之明文規定，但由所蒐集的司法實務判決來看，並無任一主張新股認購權受侵害之股東獲得勝訴之案例，從而引發新股認購權在我國是否「名存實亡」的疑問，也引發本文寫作的動機。因此，本文不擬討論股東是否應有新股認購權的法政策爭議，亦不採比較法觀點探討股東新股認購權之法制，而係於現行法規定下，探討現行法制運作所產生若干問題，例如：股東新股認購權之法律性質為何？此問題涉及新股認購契約如何成立。究竟公司對股東發送認購新股的通知是否為要約？或具其他法律性質？再者，公司對股東發送認購新股之通知，其生效應採發信主義或到達主義？究應於認購截止日前多久期間通知股東方屬合法？又，股東新股認購權受侵害時，損害賠償之請求權基礎為何？可請求損害賠償之範圍為何？有鑑於國內文獻對此制度之存廢、修正的討論多，對於現行制度運作之討論少，因此，本文以臺灣高等法院100年度重上字第176號民事判決案例事實為背景，探討上述股東新股認購權在實務運作所產生的各項問題。

Pre-emptive right is not a new topic in corporate law area. However, most studies in Taiwan focus on how to transplant U.S. law or U.K. law to amend Taiwanese corporate law. This paper will collect all judicial decisions which are related to pre-emptive right and review all the reasoning of each decision. First of all, this paper exams the legal nature of pre-emptive right. Then, move focus to how shareholders execute their said right and form contract with issuers, including the question when the notice is effective? Last but not least, when shareholders claim their pre-emptive rights are infringed, what is the remedy? Based on the above discussions, this research has a goal to help the courts reshape pre-emptive right. Then, the shareholders who claimed their pre-emptive rights are infringed can win the justice they deserved.