企業併購法第27條第14、15項規定之適用爭議──兼論違反其規定時之股份表決權行使的認定問題

The Disputes Arising from the Application of Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Article 27 of Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions Act

於立法過程中未能詳盡辯論且未記載其立法理由之企業併購法第27條第14、15項規定，最近因被使用於公司經營權爭奪戰中，而凸顯其問題點。本文針對該等規定中之「為併購目的」、「取得」及違法取得股份時之無表決權等要件及效果，從功能取向之觀點，並藉由現行證券交易法第43條之1第1項之比較法研究成果，闡明該等構成要件應有之解釋、適用內涵。與此同時，針對違反該等規定所取得股份之無表決權的法律效果，則涉及其無表決權一事應「由誰認定」、「何時認定」等問題。本文則主張倘若未能於股東會前向法院聲請假處分停止其表決權的行使，則於股東會會議上，系爭無表決權股份依法其認定權限在於股東會主席，股東會主席就此應善盡其注意義務，決定該等股份表決權之有無。倘若股東會主席未能善盡其注意義務，嗣後導致該股東會決議因決議方法瑕疵而遭股東起訴撤銷時，自應因其注意義務之違反而負有損害賠償責任。

The provisions of Article 27(14) and (15) of the Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions Act, which failed to be thoroughly debated in the legislative process and did not record the legislative reasons, have recently been used in the battle for the right to manage the company, highlighting its problematic points. This article focuses on the requirements and effects of ''for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions'', ''acquisition'' and non-voting rights when acquiring shares illegally, from the perspective of functional orientation, and adopts Article 43-1, Item 1 of the current Securities Exchange Act. The research results of comparative law in this article clarify the explanation and applicable connotation of these constituent elements. At the same time, the legal effects of non-voting rights on shares obtained in violation of these regulations involve issues such as ''who shall be determined'' and ''when shall be determined'' in the matter of their non-voting rights. This article argues that if it fails to apply for leave to the court before the shareholders' meeting to stop the exercise of voting rights, then at the shareholders' meeting, the power to determine non-voting shares lies with the chairman of the shareholders' meeting according to law, and the chairman of the shareholders' meeting should do his best in this regard. The chairman bears obligation of care, to determine the existence of voting rights for such shares. If the chairman of the shareholders' meeting fails to perform his duty of care, and subsequent resolutions of the shareholders' meeting are subsequently revoked by courts due to flaws in the resolution method, he shall be liable for damages due to the breach of his duty of care.