公司法人格否認法理明文化後之課題：以日本法之經驗為借鏡

Issues Arising after Rulings on the Disregard of Corporate Entity: Examining the Experience of the Japanese Law

本文之目的，係就公司法第154條第2項將公司法人格否認法理明文化後，該規定所可能衍生之立法缺漏，藉由司法實務判決之分析，凸顯問題所在，並借鏡日本法之經驗，提出一些可能之解決方案。公司法第154條第2項源於一般法律原則，在立法技術上，自然無法完全規範所有涉及公司法人格否認法理之案件類型，而其反面也意涵該規定在適用上有其侷限性。在此前提下，公司法人格否認法理明文化後，我國仍面臨諸多待解決之課題。首先，司法實務對於無法適用該規定之案件，是否得以該法理或從既有民事法體系中去尋找法律依據作為解決，實值探討。其次，我國司法實務對該法理之認識，多倚重美國法院判決之內容，甚至直接以此為裁判依據，此等外國法制之引用，是否妥當，亦值深思。對於上述課題，日本法對該法理之開展，或有借鏡之處。日本法與我國同為大陸法系國家，對於該法理之認知，雖亦源自於美國判例法及德國法制，但不同於我國將法理明文化之作法，日本早於1960年代後期，透過司法實務確立該法理之適用與類型化，另一方面，學者對於司法實務所建構之類型提出諸多批判，強調應在既有民事法體系中尋求解決，始為正途。無論日本司法實務所建構之類型化，或學界所提出之批判，兩者均立基於肯認該法理之精神，此或可對於我國明文化所生之課題提供些許啟發。

This paper focuses on the issues arising from the provision regulating the theory of disregard of corporate entity in Taiwan's Company Law. This paper will analyze judgments dealing with the theory and point out that there are legislative shortcomings in the provision. This paper will also examine the experiences of Japanese law and identify solutions for coping with the issues being faced. The provision regulating the theory of disregard of corporate entity originates from the general principles of law, based on which the provision is unable to deal with all forms of case involving the theory, showing the limitations of the provision. Because of the provision's inherent shortcomings, there are many issues to be faced. Judges tend not to apply the theory to cases in which the provision cannot deal with it, and so judges must decide if the legal principle can be applied to, or if a solution can be found within the existing legal framework. Taiwan's judges are used to quoting US judgments concerning the theory and use them as a norm. It is worth rethinking if it is proper to make judgments according to foreign precedent. Because Japan and Taiwan are both civil law countries, it is also worth examining the situation in Japanese Law. In Japan, understanding of the theory can be traced to US and German rulings, but these did not make provision for the theory in company law. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld a judgment in the 1960s in which the theory was clearly applied, and this has remained convention ever since. Though Japanese scholars agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, they criticized the content of the convention and emphasized that it is better to find solutions from the existing civil law system. Despite the convention established by Japan's Supreme Court and the criticisms leveled by Japanese scholars, both have agreed with the spirit of the theory. This would offer some suggestions for resolving the issues arising from Taiwan's current situation.