非公開發行公司新股發行時之說明義務－－最高法院104年度台上字第2492號民事判決評析

Private Company's Duty to Disclose when Issuing New Shares — A Review of the Year 104(NB:2015) Tai Shang Zi No.2492 Judgment of the Supreme Court

公開發行公司發行新股者，基於證券交易法之規範，就資訊揭露義務之內容、範圍與法律效果明確；相較於此，非公開發行公司新股發行時，其備置之認股書內容若有虛偽、隱匿，甚或根本未備置認股書者，是否屬於說明義務之違反，公司法第八章以下之規範適用之結果為何，尚不明確，而最高法院104年度台上字2492 號民事判決，即屬於涉及新股發行說明義務存否、隱瞞認股資訊之法律效果問題之爭議判決。準此，為建構非公開發行公司新股發行之說明義務，以供未獲悉資訊之認股人救濟，本文擬從契約公平、資訊地位落差、新股發行現有規範與立法理由等角度切入，評析新股發行時公司說明義務之內容、範圍，並從公開發行與非公開發行公司資訊揭露義務之比較中，得出其差異係量而非質之不同，建構非公開發行公司之說明義務。再者，將進一步討論新股發行時說明義務違反之法律效果，在適用詐欺、錯誤等規範撤銷契約意思表示之餘，尚欲另為債務不履行責任之主張者，應不以認股人有損害為救濟之前提，而可逕為主張認股契約解除與回復原狀之救濟。

Public companies are all required to disclose when issuing new shares in accordance with Securities and Exchange Act,whi ch stipulates the scope of disclosure and legal effects of nondisclosure. By contrast,un der chapter 8 of Company Act, it remains puzzled as to whether a none-public company has a duty to disclose when issuing new shares and to what legal consequences of false statements in,or an omission of,prep - ping for forms of description are,wh ere the puzzles mentioned above arise in a supreme court judgement,n o.2492 in 2015. In this article,I will mainly focus on the duty of disclosure on non-public companies. I will develop a duty to disclose material facts of a share subscription agreement by shedding lights on the ideas of contract inequality,u nequal access to information as well as the current regulations on new share issuance and legislation history for the basis of disclosure. Moreover,I will conduct a comparison between the regulations in a public company with those in a none-public company and further argue that the difference does not exempt a none-public company from a duty to disclose. I will discuss what the liability of nondisclosure of a non-public company will be imposed and why a subscriber,wi thout economic loss,can refer to terminate the contract by claiming breach of contract rather than revoking it.