臨時管理人制度之研究

Abstract

臨時管理人係於公司內部治理機制失靈、董事會無法有效運作而致公司營運陷入困境時，例外由司法公權力介入，依檢察官或利害關係人之聲請，經法院選任之臨時性機關。其目的在於關鍵時刻暫時代行董事長與董事會之職權，以維繫公司正常運作、保障股東權益並維持整體經濟秩序。現行公司法僅第208條之1雖已設有臨時管理人之選任規定，惟條文內容僅就聲請主體、選任要件及登記義務為概略性規定，除現行規定存在許多解釋上爭議外，對於臨時管理人之選任程序、資格、報酬、職權、任期及解任等均付之闕如，導致實務操作上衍生諸多爭議。因此，本文針對臨時管理人制度進行全面性之探討，指出現行規範設計上之爭議與不足之處，整理、分析實務運作現況，並透過比較法研究，作為我國制度改革之參考，最終提出具體之修法建議。 研究結果上，本文認為臨時管理人之選任須嚴格把關，應以公司無法透過自治機制產生新任董事、亦無法藉由行政控制解決困境，且有急迫需求為必要，始能准許選任臨時管理人，以維護司法介入企業自治之正當性與最後手段性。資格方面，臨時管理人應為具備專業經驗且公正之自然人，以確保執行職務之中立性。報酬方面，公司法雖未有規定，惟實務上向來肯認臨時管理人得請求報酬，是本文建議參考商業事件審理法之規定，於公司法明文規定由法院斟酌事務繁簡與公司財務狀況決定命公司酌給相當之報酬。職權方面，應限於公司通常事務，若須為其他必要行為，則應取得法院許可。至臨時管理人之解任，則應依解任事由區分為當然解任與裁定解任而異其處理。 綜合而言，本文透過文獻探討與實務案例之分析，指出我國臨時管理人制度在適用上所面臨的爭議與規範不足之處，並整理近年來實務中之相關裁判，歸納並釐清臨時管理人制度於實務運作之現況與問題。進一步藉由比較法研究，參酌美國與英國在類似制度上的立法設計與實務經驗，就我國臨時管理人制度提出具體之修法建議，期能兼顧司法介入與公司自治間之平衡，落實臨時管理人制度作為維持公司正常運作、保障股東權益與穩定國內經濟秩序之立法目的。

A temporary manager is an exceptional and provisional body appointed by the court upon petition by a prosecutor or an interested party, in situations where a company's internal governance mechanism fails and the board of directors is unable to function effectively, leading to operational paralysis. The primary purpose of appointing a temporary manager is to temporarily assume the powers of the chairperson and the board at a critical juncture, in order to sustain the company’s normal operations, safeguard shareholders’ rights, and maintain overall economic order. Although Article 208-1 of the current Company Act provides a basic legal foundation for the appointment of temporary administrators, the provision only briefly outlines the eligibility of petitioners, selection criteria, and registration obligations. Numerous interpretative controversies remain unresolved, and the law is silent on essential aspects such as appointment procedures, qualifications, remuneration, powers and duties, term of office, and grounds for dismissal. These gaps have led to considerable confusion and disputes in practical implementation. This study conducts a comprehensive examination of the temporary manager system, identifying deficiencies and controversies in the current legal framework, analyzing recent practical applications and court rulings, and drawing on comparative law by referencing relevant legal structures and judicial practices in the United States and the United Kingdom. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes concrete legislative recommendations for reforming Taiwan’s system. In terms of findings, this study argues that the appointment of a temporary manager should be strictly scrutinized. Such an appointment should be allowed only when the company is unable to resolve its governance crisis through internal mechanisms, cannot restore functionality through administrative measures, and is facing urgent need. This ensures that judicial intervention remains legitimate and a last resort. Regarding qualifications, the temporary manager should be an impartial natural person with relevant professional experience to ensure the neutrality of their role. Although the Company Act does not currently regulate remuneration, judicial practice has long acknowledged the right of temporary administrators to claim compensation. Therefore, this paper recommends introducing explicit provisions—modeled after the Business Trial Act—allowing courts to order reasonable remuneration based on the complexity of the duties and the company’s financial condition. As for the scope of authority, the temporary manager should be limited to handling the company’s ordinary affairs. Any action beyond this scope should require court approval. With respect to dismissal, the study suggests distinguishing between automatic termination (e.g., upon reappointment of a functioning board) and dismissal by court ruling (e.g., due to misconduct or resignation). In conclusion, through literature review and case analysis, this study highlights the practical disputes and legal inadequacies in Taiwan’s temporary manager system. By analyzing recent court decisions and the current implementation landscape, and by incorporating comparative insights from U.S. and U.K. legal systems, this paper presents targeted legislative proposals. The goal is to strike a proper balance between judicial intervention and corporate autonomy, thereby reinforcing the temporary administrator’s role in preserving corporate operations, protecting shareholder interests, and ensuring economic stability.