揭穿公司面紗原則探討

The Analysis of “Piercing the Corporate Veil＂ Principle

「法人人格獨立原則」與「股東有限原則」是企業最珍貴特質；但是有心人士濫用此二原則造成嚴重的外部經濟成本。為了解決這個問題，美國司法實務採行了「揭穿公司面紗原則」，要求躲在公司背後的股東對損害亦要負賠償責任。臺灣最近如美國般地亦發生多重相同案例，利害關係人與公共利益承擔巨大的損失。這些受害人尋求司法救濟時，雖主張法院應揭穿公司面紗，然卻遭駁回；理由是「法無明文」。學者大力急呼要求應以立法方式解決這個問題。2013年立法院終於修正通過公司法第154條第2項。然而，如何適用這個原則與規定，留下不少疑慮。美國司法實務採行揭穿公司面紗已逾百年，有很多案例與論著值得吾人參考。本文介紹美國實務所採行的理論、要件與考量因素，吾人希望其能為台灣司法實務與業界參考。本文溯及地介紹台灣司法實務案例，特別是涉及公司法、稅法、勞工法與環保法揭穿公司面紗原則，並進而討論公司法第154條第2項之構成要件且嘗試提出修正建議。 “The Principle of Legal Person Independence＂ and “The Principle of Limited Liability＂ are the enterprise's most characteristic. But its' were abused by persons who had illegal purposes and caused serious extraordinary economic costs. To resolve the question, American judicial practice adopted “the Principle of Piercing the Corporate Veil＂ to request the stockholders hidden behind the corporate veil to responsible for the damages. Recently there were so many events like the American faced in Taiwan. The constituency and public interests beared so much damage. The cases were overruled by court because of no statute involved. The scholars declared the necessity to resolve these questions in legislative. It was amended in 2013 Article 154 Section 2 in Corporation Law. However, how to apply it, there leaves so many doubts. The article introduce its theory, requirements, and considered facts which promulgated by scholars and justices in American. We hope its would be refered by Taiwan Judicial cases. The article also retrospectively introduce and analysis specially in Corporate Law, Taxes Law, Labor Law and Environment Law applied the Principle of Piercing the Corporate Veil. We then discussed the requirements of §154 II in Corporate Law and evaluate the defects. Finally, we present a proposal of amendment §154 II in Corporate Law.