頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 論投保法的裁判解任=Discharging the Corporate Director by the Court under the Securities Investor and Futures Trader Protection Act |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 賴英照; | 書刊名 | 台灣法學雜誌期刊 |
| 卷 期 | 1:1 2025.03[民114.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-26 |
| 分類號 | 563.51 |
| 關鍵詞 | 裁判解任; 失格效力; 文義預測可能範圍; 通常文義; 法律解釋方法; 憲法制約; Court action for discharging a director; Effect of disqualification; Possible scope of predictive textual meaning; Ordinary meaning; Method of statutory interpretation; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 依投保法規定,上市公司董事如果有特定的違法情事,投保中心得 「訴請法院裁判解任公司之董事」。這項「裁判解任」的制度,實務執行 上發生一些爭議問題。 從法院相關判決觀察,爭議的根源,在於法律解釋方法的分歧。有 些判決遵守法律規定,並以法條的通常文義為裁判的依據。有些判決則 為實現立法目的或追求合理的結果,改變法條的通常文義。 憲法明定,「法官依據法律獨立審判」。因此,法院處理法律爭議, 應以法律的規定為裁判依據。如果法條文義明確,應依明確的文義判決, 不能以「立法目的」或「合理結果」,改變法律明確的規定。 |
| 英文摘要 | Under the Securities Investor and Futures Trader Protection Act, when a director of a listed company conducts certain illegal acts, the Protection Institution may “institute an action petitioning a court for a judgment or ruling discharging the given director”. Some controversial issues have arisen in the implementation of the aforesaid discharge. Court decisions reveal that the roots of the said controversies arise from the divergence of the method of statutory interpretation. Some of the judicial decisions observe the provisions of the law and make decisions based on the ordinary meanings of said provisions, while others change the ordinary meanings to realize the legislative purpose or to pursue reasonable outcome. Under the Constitution, judges must decide a case according to the law. Therefore, the court should resolve legal disputes pursuant to the law. When textual meaning is clear, clear ordinary meaning should be followed. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。