論股東會召集權：獨立董事之制度修正的反省

Abstract

近年來屢屢發生公司派與市場派透過獨立董事召集臨時股東會、爭奪公司經營權之案件。尤其在2021年智慧財產及商業法院上路至今，已有若干裁判對個案爭議乃至商業法治產生深遠的影響，並透過定暫時狀態處分再次影響我國股東會召集權之見解。本文整理公司法、證交法之股東會召集權，突顯我國股東會召集權受有相當之限制，且立法者自2001年持續修法擴張股東會召集權，然而在2023年竟修法縮減獨立董事之股東會召集權。本文自獨立董事之股東會召集權出發，欲藉由比較監察人與獨立董事制度上之差異，突顯2006年引進獨立董事制度時，以證券交易法第14條之4大量準用監察人規定之不當。本文最終指出監察人與獨立董事之選舉制度與人數差異才是近來經營權案件之主因，並以此合理解釋2023年修法縮減獨立董事之股東會召集權。 於觀察、比較三則商業法院之裁定後，本文認為商業法院依商業事件審理法第64條、商業事件審理細則第36條之四要素定暫時狀態處分，見解反覆、不一致，仍處於發展之階段。本文因此整理美國法上之初步禁制令以供參考，但發現仍舊難以建立一套得機械性操作的審查標準。因此肯定以修正證券交易法第14條之4，解決近來經營權爭奪事件頻傳之現象。 本文最後提出商業法院審查定暫時狀態處分之機制，將公司法第173條之1、220條、173條設為低度、中度、高度審查基準，再依商審法細則第36條的四要素作「必要時」之判斷。

With the frequent use of calling right of a special meeting of independent directors in contests for corporate control, the right itself has shown its significant role as an effective weapon in corporate disputes. In particular, since 2021, when the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court was opened, there have been several decisions that have had a profound impact on the disputes and even the commercial law, especially through the preliminary injunctions, which again affects the right to call a special meeting of shareholders in Taiwan. This article summarizes the right to call a special meeting under the Company Act and the Securities and Exchange Act, which highlights that the right to call a special meeting in Taiwan is subject to considerable restrictions, and the legislators has continued to amend the law to expand the right to since 2001, but in 2023, it suddenly restrict the right of independent directors. By comparing the differences between the supervisor’s and independent director’s systems, this article highlights the impropriety of using Article 14-4 of Securities and Exchange Act to apply the supervisory provisions to a large extent when the independent director system was introduced in 2006. Ultimately, this article points out that the difference in the election system and number of supervisors and independent directors is the main cause of recent corporate disputes for corporate control. After observing and comparing the rulings of three rulings, this article concludes that the commercial court is still in the developmental stage in determining the preliminary injunctions according to Article 64 of the Commercial Case Adjudication Act and the four elements of Article 36 of the Commercial Case Adjudication Rules. This article tries to compile the preliminary injunctions in U.S. law for reference, but finds that it is still difficult to establish a set of mechanically operable standards of review. Finally, this paper proposes a mechanism for the commercial court to review and determine whether it should give the preliminary injunction. Articles 173-1, 220, and 173 of the Company Act will be used as the basis for low, medium, and high level of review, and then the four elements of Article 36 of the Commercial Case Adjudication Rules will be utilized to make a decision.