查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 從實務面觀察特別背信與商業判斷原則之應用=Practical Aspects of the Special Breach of Trust and Business Judgment Rule |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 吳盈德; | 書刊名 | 台灣法學雜誌期刊 |
| 卷 期 | 1:1 2025.03[民114.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁27-39 |
| 分類號 | 585.48 |
| 關鍵詞 | 特別背信罪; 受任人義務; 違背職務行為; 受託義務; 商業判斷法則; Special breach of trust; Duties of the entrusted person; Violation of duties; Entrusted duties; Business judgment rule; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 刑法解釋學在探討背信罪時,是基於條文上「違背其任務行為」之 文字,學者認為應係較著重在信賴關係的違背,實務上亦強調背信罪是 屬於破壞信賴關係侵害財產的犯罪類型。至於證券交易法第 171 條第 1 項第 3 款處罰的「違背職務行為」,目前實務上與學說上較常見的解釋, 違背職務行為應包括違背受任人義務與對受託事務處分權濫用之情形。 目前實務上已有最高法院判決意識到這個問題,而認為已發行有價證券 公司董事、監察人或經理人是否有違背職務行為,應基於相關之法令、 章程、內部控制制度、契約等,以認定其職權行使之依據,方足以判定 董事、監察人或經理人是否有在其職務範圍內不應為而為,或應為而不 為之違背職務行為。 本文認為證券交易法特別背信罪「違背職務行為」,應限縮在權力濫 用的概念上,背信罪的違背職務行為,一般而言,在本質上含有違反受 託義務之特徵,而行為人是否違反受託義務,涉及公司經營之合理「商 業判斷法則」,此項法則包括注意義務及忠實義務的合理性判斷。因此, 法院在審理這類個案時,均應有事前的、明確的法律上基礎,不能就「行 為人所為決定是否正確」或「行為人應作如何的決定」等涉及商業經營 的專業考量為事後審查,以免干預市場機制。 |
| 英文摘要 | The interpretation of the crime of breach of trust in criminal law primarily relies on the statutory phrase “violating their duty of trust.” Scholars commonly argue that this phrase emphasizes the breach of trust relationships. In practice, the crime of breach of trust is viewed as one that undermines trust and violates property rights. Regarding Article 171, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which penalizes “violating duties,” the more common interpretations, both in legal practice and doctrine, suggest that this violation encompasses both the failure to fulfill the entrusted duties and the abuse of power over the entrusted matters. In response to this issue, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that whether a director, supervisor, or manager of a publicly listed company has violated their duties should be determined by referencing relevant laws, the company’s articles of incorporation, internal control systems, contracts, and similar documents. These provide the necessary foundation to assess whether their actions were within the scope of their authority. Only based on this framework can one conclude whether a director, supervisor, or manager has committed a breach of duty by doing what they should not have done or failing to do what they should have within the scope of their duties. This paper asserts that in the context of special breach of trust under the Securities and Exchange Act, the violation of duties should be restricted to the concept of power abuse. Generally speaking, breach of trust inherently involves the violation of entrusted duties. Whether a person has violated their entrusted duties relates to the “business judgment rule” applied in corporate governance. This rule involves assessing the reasonableness of the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. Therefore, when courts review cases of this nature, they must base their judgments on a clear legal foundation established in advance. It would be improper to retroactively assess whether the individual's decision was correct or what decision they should have made, based on the professional judgment of business operations, as this could interfere with market dynamics. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。