論財報不實董監賠償責任之抗辯事由

Abstract

公開揭露原則要求發行人誠實且充分揭露公司財務業務資訊，使投資人在進行投資決策前，能據以判斷是否投資該證券。為落實公開揭露原則、維護財務報告之真實性與可信性，避免公司的詐欺隱匿，證交法第 20 條第 2 項及 20 條 之 1 明文有財報不實民事賠償責任之規定。

在現行財報不實規範下，董監事等公司負責人負推定過失責任，董監事須證明已盡相當注意且有正當理由可合理確信財報內容無虛偽或隱匿之情事，始能免負賠償責任。惟「相當注意」、「正當理由」、「合理確信」等用語，均屬於不確定之法律概念，因而在實務上衍生出許多法律適用之爭執。

本論文首先，就我國財報不實主客觀要件等介紹說明，以財報不實案件中董監事之免責抗辯事由為中心，探討我國實務適用免責辯事由所產生之問題。分析我國證券交易法第 20 條之 1 所存在之疑義，並同時就美國立法例進行比較，分析我國法與美國法對於爭議問題之見解，透過比較彼此間差異與不同，提供解決問題、增修規則辦法的擬具參考。

最後提出本論文財報不實就董監免責抗辯之建議，期待我國財報不實案件在法律適用上能具體明確化各賠償義務人之責任，建立一個合理、公平對待內外部董事賠償機制，吸引各領域專業菁英人才，勇於擔任獨立董事，促進公司治理之提升與卓越發展。

The general disclosure philosophy requires the issuer to honestly and fully disclose the company''s financial informations. To avoid financial fraud, Article 20(2) and Article 20-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides civil liability of the financial reports contain misstatements and omissions.

Under Article 20-1(2) , directors and supervisors shall not be liable for damages when he or she can demonstrate that they exercised all due diligence and had legitimate cause to believe that the reports or documents contained no misstatements and omissions. However, the term “due diligence defense” is an indefinite legal concept that brings a controversial issue of law application in practice.

This study focuses on due diligence defenses of directors and supervisors in the case of false reports. First, this study introduces the relevant regulations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and important cases of U.S. Court decisions. From the view of comparative law, this study analyzes different types of due diligence defenses and difference between the U.S.A. and Taiwan. The results of the study were that the court shall apply the due diligence defenses to reducing the liability of directors and supervisors to achieve a reasonable risk allocation between investors and defendants.