「實質董事」或「實際控制人」？－－臺灣最高法院103年度台再字第31號判決評析

“De Facto Director” or “Actual Controller”?

啓○建設案揭示了對實質董事進行規制的公司法路徑的差異及多種可能性。一則，我們可以透過擴張「自我交易」之規制主體的方式，將「實質董事」納入「董事」之中，使其接受公司法有關董事行為之規制，由此，則林○仁與公司間的交易未經法定程式可能涉及《公司法》第149條之侵權評價的問題，也可能涉及以《合同法》對該交易是否有效進行評價的問題。二則，我們可以透過將「實質董事」納入「實際控制人」範疇之中，進而用《公司法》中的實際控制人條款－－以關聯交易之方式去規範林○仁之行為。由此，則一方面，按照《公司法》第21條，林○仁不得以關聯關係損害公司之利益，否則，將對公司承擔侵權責任； 另一方面，也可用《合同法》去評價此時林○仁與公司之間的交易行為，則該等不合規之關聯交易可能屬於可撤銷之交易，也可能屬於無效之交易。無論是走「實質董事」，還是「實際控制人」路徑，我們都能約束林○仁之行為，只是不同的請求權基礎，其構成要件有差異，追責難易程度不同。可見，對實質董事之「自我交易」或「關聯交易」之規範，確可「條條大路通羅馬」。

The case of QI construction Co. reveals the difference and variety of possibilities between company law to regulate the de facto director. First, we can expand the subject of self-dealing, regarding the de facto directors as Directors, and make it accept the rules of directors. Thus, the transactions without legal program between Lin and company may relates to the company law in Article 149 about the infringement action, and may also involved in contract law about the valid of the transaction. Second, we can regard de facto of directors as actual control person, make it accept the rules of actual controller in company law. So on the one hand, in accordance with the company law Article 21, Lin shouldnt damage the companys interests, or it will have tort liability to the company; on the other hand, wo can also use contract law to evaluate the transaction, Lins transactions with the company belongs to the revocable or invalid one. Whether Lin is a de facto director or actual controller, we can restrain Lins behavior, the difference only lies in the base of the right of claim, its constitutive requirements, and difficulty to be blamed. It can be seen that the regulation methods of self-dealing or related transactions about the de facto directors behavior are just different roads lead to Rome.