遵守文義或司法造法：會計師事務所財報簽證的賠償責任

Judging or Legislating: Civil Liabilities of the Accounting Firm for Financial Statement Attestation

會計師辦理財務報告簽證如有故意或過失，應對投資人負損害賠償責任時，會計師事務所應否連帶賠償？證交法並未將會計師事務所列為賠償義務人。有法院遵守法條文義，認為會計師事務所不須負責。另有判決積極造法，並類推適用民法第28條，令會計師事務所連帶賠償。法院選擇遵守文義或進行司法造法，左右判決的結果。證交法於2006年1月修正時，就財報不實的賠償責任，創設比例責任制。如簽證時間在2006年1月之前，賠償義務人能否適用比例責任制？判決同樣分歧。有法院遵守文義，認為不能適用。有法院則依民法第1條所規定的法理，認為應該適用。遵守文義或司法造法的不同態度，再度左右判決結果。本文以正義食品案的司法判決為基礎，分析法院使用的法律解釋方法。相關判決顯示，法院究竟遵守文義或司法造法，繫於執法者內心公平正義的價值觀。價值因人而異，判決的分歧由此而生。

When a CPA is held liable for the misconduct or negligence in performing attestation of financial statements, is the accounting firm jointly and severally liable with the CPA? Since the accounting firm is not named as an obligor under the Securities Exchange Act (''the Act''), courts split on the issue. Some decisions respect the language of the Act and hold the accounting firm not liable. Others impose liabilities on the accounting firm by analogically applying to the firm a Civil Code provision which under its text governs a legal entity, but not a firm organized as a partnership. The accounting firm s liabilities hinge on the court s choice between respecting the text of the Act or engaging in judicial law-making. This article first discusses judicial decisions on Cheng-yi Food Company case and relevant cases regarding the civil liabilities of the accounting firm, and then analyzes the statutory interpretation methods the courts use to decide the relevant cases. This article observes that as the judges value stands at the heart of judicial decisions, the courts have chosen different interpretation methods to reach the results that they believe to be just and fair.