少數股東召集股東會之規範理念及邏輯──兼論公司登記之法律效力及定位

The Normative Concept and Logic of Regulation regarding Shareholders’Meeting Held by Minority Shareholders

在現今法院實務運作、甚至國內公司法學界針對公司法第173條第1、2項、第208條之1、第173條第4項等規定，其構成要件分析、適用對象事實情境及各該規定彼此間應有的規範分工關係，尚未有一致見解、甚至可謂相當紊亂、時而有錯認其規範理念及應有適用情境的現狀下，本文嘗試從與美國、德國、日本等國之公司法比較研究，說明上開各條（項）規定在各國公司法制中之規範定位及實際運作時所設想之適用事實情境，藉此以釐清上開各條（項）規定於我國公司法全體規範架構中，應有的規範定位及適用情境。並進而主張(1)公司法第173條第1、2項規定應適用於董事會合法存在，且得正常執行其職務、但主觀不願或不為召集股東會之情形；(2)公司法第208條之1應適用在董事會雖於法律上合法存在，但因故不能或不為執行職務之情形；(3)公司法第173條第4項規定應適用於董事會因董事個人辭職、死亡或解任，而其缺額情況因無法滿足法定或章定定足數要求，致無法合法組成董事會之情形。至於公司登記主管機關是同意、抑或駁回董事變更登記之申請，基於公司登記僅具有對抗第三人之效力，其同意或駁回申請之決定，對其登記事項之基礎事實原因是否存在及違法有無，並不會帶來任何影響，其事實存在有無或違法與否的判定，乃是法院認事用法之權限，公司登記主管機關對此並無置喙餘地。

"In the current practice of Taiwanese courts, and even domestic corporate law academic circles, the analysis of the constitutive elements, the applicable factual situation and the interplay regarding Article 173 (1), (2), Article 208-1 and Article 173 (4) of the Company Act has not reached a consensus, it can even be described as quite chaotic, and sometimes the normative concept and the applicable context are misunderstood. This article attempts to learn from comparative analyses with counterpart stipulations of Company Act in the United States, Germany, Japan in order to study the normative positioning, their applicable factual situations of each article in those countries, and then clarify how these Articles in Taiwan should be explained and applied. This article argued firstly that Article 173 (1), (2) of the Company Act should be applicable to situations where the board of directors legally exists and can perform its duties normally, but is subjectively unwilling or not to convene a meeting of shar eholders; secondly, Article 208-1 of the Company Act shall apply to situations where the board of directors, although legally existing in law, is unable or unable to perform its duties for some reason; thirdly, Article 173 (4) of the Company Act shall apply to situations where due to the resignation, death or removal of the board of directors, the lack of vacancies cannot meet the statutory quota, and result in the inability to legally form the board of directors. As for whether the company registration authority approves or rejects the application for the registration of changes to directors, based on the fact that company registration is only effective against third parties, its decision will not affect whether the basic facts regarding the registration exist or are legal or not. The judgment of whether the fact exists or whether it is illegal or not is the jurisdiction of the court."