論「揭穿公司面紗原則」功能之擴張及其於國際投資仲裁之適用

Abstract

揭穿公司面紗原則為法院否認法人格之個案衡平機制，從本文所觀察的早期 適用案例、根據實務案件所發展出的理論基礎與構成要素、及針對關係企業集團 之修正性適用，可以發現其面貌其實是隨著案件和爭議內容不停地變遷的；因此， 揭穿公司面紗原則實際上亦適用於存在公司法人格濫用之各個法領域，跨越金錢 與非金錢債務、私法與公法、甚至實體與程序上的爭議。 為了探究揭穿公司面紗原則如此多面貌背後的中心價值，本文以權利濫用禁 止理論之價值與內涵重新探討揭穿公司面紗原則，並認為該原則之核心係所謂「雙 重濫用」的特質：第一係悖於公司作為獨立法人格之事實，卻濫用公司獨立法人 格之各項特徵，包括有限責任、資產分割原則、公司為法律或契約上之權利義務 主體等；第二係該等公司法人格之濫用同時造成了法律規範目的之違背或破壞， 蓋個案中濫用法人格目的即是為了形式上符合法律規定，惟實際上若違反了個案 中法律規範背後之規範政策或目的，即為法院揭穿公司面紗之關鍵原因。針對關 係企業發展出的企業主體理論之適用與操作亦證實此雙重濫用之精神。 國際投資領域中，公司為投資之主要型態。為了取得原國籍所無的投資保護， 外國投資人頻繁地以國籍安排行為重新調整其投資之公司架構。本文認為此項行 為在某些情況下有權利濫用之虞，又鑑於目前仲裁庭權利濫用運用之模糊與不一 致、揭穿公司面紗基於其與權利濫用之緊密關係、及其在國際法上可能取得之地 位，本文嘗試探討揭穿公司面紗原則在國內法判例所發展出細緻的構成要素與判 斷因素，也許得作為判斷國籍安排行為是否構成權利濫用之具體標準。

Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine, as an equitable remedy for the Court to exceptionally disregard corporate personality, has been evolving as the disputes and the facts of corporate form abuse changes over time. This feature is observed and illustrated by the cases of veil-piercing in the earliest ages, the examination elements and factors of instrumentality test (or three-pronged test), and the revised application of Enterprise Entity Theory. Moreover, Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine is applied in multiple law fields where abuse of corporate personality or corporate form exists. To further analyze the core value of such Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine behind such broad and various application, this thesis attempts to connect the Doctrine with the more basic Principle of Abuse of Rights, and finds that the Doctrine can be expressed by a criteria of “double abuse”: Firstly, an abuse of separate corporate personality, which refers to lack of separate existence in reality but take advantage of the formal existence of separate entity, including the interests of limited liability, asset partitioning, or the independent status to enjoy rights, assume obligations and own property rights under laws, transaction, business operation etc.; Secondly, such abuse of corporate form is used to violate or escape from the object and purpose of the laws at issue. Courts in fact tend to disregard corporate personality in cases when adherence to separate corporate personality would damage the underlying policies or purposes of the law at issue. In the international investment arena, foreign investments are mostly done through corporate form. In order to obtain interests under International Investment Agreements which the investors otherwise are not entitled to, especially the standing to bring an arbitration claim against the Host States, a few investors acquire nationality through restructure of investments. Some tribunals acknowledge that such ‘nationality planning’ might constitute abuse of right, but has been divergent and inconsistent in the examination of abuse of right. This thesis discusses the possibility and suggests that arbitral tribunals can refer to the elements and standards of Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine when applying abuse of right in the disputes concerning nationality planning.