中小企業法制之再建構—以有限公司、閉鎖性股份有限公司與非公開發行公司之異同為中心

Abstract

我國目前上百萬家中小企業中，撇開非屬公司的獨資、合夥與有限合夥不談，採用公司型態者，有多達50萬家為有限公司、14萬家為股份有限公司，而2015年引進閉鎖性專節後，至今也有4600多家閉鎖性股份有限公司，故此三種公司均為我國大部分中小企業使用者所採之選擇。不過，隨著2015年與2018年公司法兩次大幅修法，近年來有愈來愈多文獻認為這三者愈趨相近，更稱有限公司產生「股份有限公司化」、非公開發行公司產生「閉鎖化」之現象，而認三者存有諸多規範近似之處、甚而有重疊立法之嫌，導致三者彼此間於公司法下之定位與關係不明、並有適用上與運作上之疑義與不便。因此，有必要對此進行通盤之檢討，了解立法者為何針對中小企業，要設計出三種不同之公司類型?其彼此間現存的各項異同之處，是否有存在之必要性與合理性?是否能謂何者較優，何者較劣?其中一者可否被他者所取代?進一步言之，公司法未來修法之方向上，究竟應保留、甚至強化此三種公司之間的差異，抑或是應去除其等彼此間的差異，最終整合為一種公司類型?如何方屬最適合我國中小企業的組織法制架構? 為探討前述疑問並給出答案，本文參酌英美兩國公司法上與我國此三種公司具有類似性之公司制度，即以英國法上的私人公司、美國法上閉鎖性股份有限公司作為立法體例之參考，借鏡其在公司組織法制內各項制度相關之立法、學術或司法見解，與我國進行比較，藉此發現英美法構築中小企業法制環境時之所尊崇之核心精神為何，並作為反思我國法之基礎。 其後，再透過文獻之研究，發現大型公司與中小型公司基於其本質上之差異，而有法制設計上應遵循之不同原則。並由各式不同類型中小企業之特色所衍生而出之不同法制需求，回推立法者之所以設計這三種公司類型之立法意旨。本文推測，立法者如此設計之背後原因，在於使三種公司各自之法制特色能分別對應各種中小企業之法制需求。亦即，有限公司係設計予傳統一般型中小企業或家族企業使用、閉鎖性專節係設計予新創企業使用、非公開發行公司則係設計予發展型中小企業使用。然而，本文認為此種法制設計方式流於僵化、自我設限，不僅無法符合中小型公司法制架構上應遵循之原則，於現實運作上亦無法真正有效滿足中小企業瞬息萬變之法律需求，而產生規範面與現實面之不必要亦不合理之落差。 故而，於文末，本文建議公司法未來修法上應將現行三種公司整合為一，將其現存之各項缺失剔除，並融合其各自之特色，希冀能建構出一個適合中小型、閉鎖型公司之法制框架，使各種類型之中小企業均能在此一框架下自由規劃內部組織架構、權利義務關係、滿足自身之需求，而得以落實高度契約與章程自治之精神，並兼顧少數股東之保護。

Among the millions of SMEs(Small and Medium Enterprises) in Taiwan, there are approximately 500,000 limited companies and 140,000 companies limited by shares, and since the introduction of the close company section in 2015, there are more than 4,600 close companies. However, with the two major amendments to the Company Act in 2015 and 2018, a lot of literature has been pointing out that these three types of companies are becoming more and more similar in recent years, and that there is even overlapping legislation, resulting in doubts and inconveniences in their application and operation. Therefore, it is necessary to figure out the relationship between these three types of companies and their respective positions or functions under the Company Act, and conduct a comprehensive review to understand why the legislator designed three different types of companies for SMEs. Are the existing differences and similarities between them necessary and reasonable? Is it possible to say which one is better and which one is worse? Can one of them be replaced by the other? More importantly, in the direction of future amendments to the Company Act, should the differences between these three types of companies be maintained or even strengthened, or should the differences between them be removed and eventually integrated into one type of company? What is the most suitable organizational and legal structure for SMEs in Taiwan? In order to explore the above questions and provide answers, this thesis learns lessons from the legal systems of the U.K. private companies and the U.S. close corporations, making reference to their legislative, academic, or judicial opinions on various frameworks in the corporate legal system, comparing them with those of our nation, and find out how the U.K. and U.S law constructs the legal environment for SMEs, and use it as a basis for reflecting on our own law. Then, through the literature study, it is found that large and small and medium-sized companies have different principles to follow in the design of the legal system based on their inherent differences. In addition, the different legal needs arising from the characteristics of different types of SMEs are used to deduce the legislative intent of the legislator in designing these three types of companies. This article speculates that the reason behind the legislator's design is that the legal characteristics of each of the three types of companies can respond to the legal needs of each specific type of SME. In other words, the limited company is designed for traditional, general SMEs or family businesses, the close company is designed for start-ups, and the non-public company is designed for developing SMEs. However, this paper believes that this legal design is rigid, inconsistent and self-limiting, which not only fails to comply with the principles that should be followed in the legal structure of SMEs, but also fails to effectively meet the ever-changing legal needs of small and medium-sized enterprises in practice, causing unnecessary and unreasonable discrepancies between the normative and practical aspects. Consequently, at the end of this article, we suggest that the future revision of the Company Law should integrate the three types of companies into one, eliminate their existing deficiencies, and combine their respective advantages in the hope of constructing a legal framework suitable for small and medium-sized, closely-held corporations, so that small and medium-sized enterprises of all types can freely plan their internal organizational structure, rights and obligations, and meet their own needs under this framework, and implement a high degree of freedom of contracts, the autonomy of enterprise while taking into account the protection of minority shareholders.