評公司法第8條第3項之增訂

Study on Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Company Act

公司法明定董事會為公司業務執行機關，董事握有經營大權，然實際上公司決定、執行、影響公司營運方針與重要決策者可能並非董事，反而另有其人。公司法向來以形式認定董事，故不具董事名義之人決定、執行、影響公司業務執行者，除了符合經理人定義外，無法課其負公司負責人之責任。如此即突顯法規範漏洞之問題，同時也易為有心人所用，規避法律責任。因此，倘有權力者故意不擔任董事或經理人等職位，卻直接或間接執行董事職務或影響公司經營決定時，即有可能難以追訴其法律責任。為因應上開問題，公司法於2012年1月4日增訂第8條第3項（下稱「本項」），引進「事實上董事」與「影子董事」概念，自此，若有上述情形，不論發生實際執行董事職務或實質控制公司等情事，即可要求實際有權者負董事之法律責任。本項增訂跳脫傳統公司法採形式主義之窠臼，以實質方式認定決定、執行、影響公司業務執行之人，課其公司負責人之責，實乃公司法制之創新管制手段。本項立意雖值得肯定，惟適用牽涉實質認定之概念，為我國法制上所欠缺，是以如何實質認定「事實上董事」與「影子董事」，執行上並非無疑。由於本項係參考英國法所制定，本文擬藉助英國法之概念與經驗，據此試圖了解本項增訂後於我國法可能產生之問題，並提出適用法上的建議，期能協助本項目的之達成。最後，本文將提出對本項執法與修正建議，盼能有助我國邁向更健全之公司治理法制。

Under the Company Act, the term, Director, only means De Jure Director which refers to those who are validly appointed by the company in which they serve. Thus, any person will not be regarded as a director, even though he/she may occupy the position of director or have substantial influence on the operation of a given company. Thus, a legal loophole has been created because such powerful persons in a company will not be subject to obligation and liability rules of the Company Act imposing on directors (or responsible persons). In response to this loophole, Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Company Act (the Paragraph) was enacted in 2012 and introduced De Facto Director and Shadow Director into Taiwan's legal system. Thus, any person, who occupies the position of a director or gives instructions or directions usually followed by directors of the company, may be deemed as De Facto Director and Shadow Director and then she should be liable for her misconduct, if any, just like De Jure Director. However, both De Facto Director and Shadow Director are new concepts in Taiwan and the identification of De Facto Director and Shadow Director in a given case can be a new problem. To make the Paragraph effectively workable, a clear standard of how to identify De Facto Director and Shadow Director in a given case should play a pivotal role. As U.K. is the first country which introduces such concepts and has had many cases in this regard, its judicial opinions can be good reference for Taiwan's competent authority. Therefore, this Article will review some important cases in U.K. and propose a suggestive standard for the Paragraph. In addition, this Article will discuss some issues in relation to the application of the Paragraph and analyze how the Paragraph will work closely and effectively with other mechanisms currently existed under the Company Act. In conclusion, with an eye to maintaining accountability consistent with corporate governance, this Article will offer suggestions for future reform on the Paragraph.