論董事注意義務之標準建構

Reassessing the Standard of the Director’s Duty of Care in Taiwan

我國公司法第23條董事注意義務立法已逾二十年，但由實務判決觀察顯示，法院仍未明確建立注意義務與忠實義務之界線，雖逐漸充實注意義務之內涵，但標準仍未統一。本文分析比較美國與澳洲在不同路徑發展下之注意義務後認為，注意義務作為監督經營階層決策之主要機制，以我國股權結構集中，代理成本問題存在於少數股東與控制股東間之狀況，若將勤勉義務納入我國注意義務之考量範圍內，應可強化我國公司治理，降低代理成本問題。由法院判決亦可觀察出，建立內部控制制度，並不等同於盡其監督義務，核心問題應為董事如何確保內控制度之有效性，如何透過內控制度監督公司業務。除勤勉義務外，技能義務亦可列入我國未來之參考指標，除可以保護公司利益之外，對於創造友善經商環境亦有助益。本文藉由比較注意義務發展，分析我國注意義務之可能內涵，希望能藉由內涵及標準建立參考，釐清我國注意義務之可能範疇，以供未來實務參考，使股東能更有效地利用此一制度，監督董事決策之質量，保護公司利益。

Article No. 23 of the directors’ duty of care in the Company Act has been enacted in Taiwan for more than 20 years. From a practical perspective, the courts in Taiwan has not clearly established the boundary between the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. Although the context of the duty has been judiciary enriched, a clear standard of care is yet to be established. The article analyses and compares the duty between Australia and US from a perspective of monitoring the decision-making power of the management. Given that the ownership structure in Taiwan is concentrated and agency problem exists between the controller and minority shareholders, the inclusion of duty of care could significantly reduce the agency problem and improve corporate governance.
From the perspective of judicial precedents, establishing internal control does not assure managerial decision quality. The core issue is how to improve the effectiveness of the internal control mechanism and supervise corporate business through the operation of the mechanism. In addition to the duty of diligence, the duty of skills can be introduced in Taiwan in that it is not only conducive to the protection of corporate interests but also creates a better business environment. Based on the lessons from the Common Law jurisdictions, the article discusses the mean of duty of care in Taiwan. It is hoped that this article helps draw the contour of duty of care in Taiwan by exploring the sophisticated standards in the jurisdictions as well as establishes an excellent reference for practice to better benefit shareholders in supervising management to protect the firms.