股東會決議瑕疵之救濟

Abstract

股東會決議瑕疵事件，於我國公司運作實務上層出不窮，面對此類事件，股東尋求救濟之方式多為提起訴訟，而受到我國對決議瑕疵分類採取「三分法」的影響，股東提起的訴訟主要為「撤銷股東會決議之訴」、「確認股東會決議不成立之訴」及「確認股東會決議無效之訴」三種，為我國公司訴訟之大宗。本文首先自我國股東會決議瑕疵之分類出發，探討法院操作三分法於實務上面臨的問題，以及股東提起決議效力訴訟時，三分法所帶來的影響與困境，接著參考比較法上的股東會決議瑕疵分類，提出我國決議瑕疵分類解釋適用之建議。次就股東會決議瑕疵效力訴訟的三種類型進行詳細分析，探討其訴訟要件、判決效力及其所能帶來之救濟實益，並反思股東會決議效力訴訟對決議瑕疵事件之解決是否有其極限，以及如何完善股東面臨決議瑕疵事件之救濟途徑。最後，本文將實務上常作為股東會決議效力訴訟配套的定暫時狀態處分制度與美國法之初步禁制令制度進行比較，期能提供我國決議瑕疵事件中定暫時狀態處分審理之借鏡，以彌補決議瑕疵效力訴訟在我國實務上面臨之困境與侷限。

Defective shareholders’ meeting resolutions frequently arise in corporate practice in Taiwan. When confronted with such issues, shareholders primarily seek remedies through litigation. Influenced by Taiwan’s tripartite classification of defective resolutions, shareholders typically initiate one of three major types of corporate litigation: (1) an action for recission of a shareholders’ meeting resolution, (2) an action for a declaratory judgment that a shareholders’ meeting resolution is unestablished, and (3) an action for a declaratory judgment that a shareholders’ meeting resolution is invalid. These types of lawsuits constitute a significant portion of corporate litigation in Taiwan. This article begins by examining Taiwan’s tripartite classification of defective shareholders’ meeting resolutions and explores the challenges courts face in applying this framework in practice. It further analyzes the implications and difficulties shareholders encounter when bringing lawsuits concerning the validity of resolutions under this classification. Drawing on comparative law perspectives, this article proposes interpretative and practical recommendations for the classification of defective resolutions in Taiwan. Subsequently, this study conducts a detailed analysis of the three types of litigation concerning the validity of shareholders’ meeting resolutions, discussing their procedural requirements, legal effects, and the actual relief they can provide. It also critically assesses whether such litigation offers adequate solutions for defective resolutions or whether there are inherent limitations in resolving these disputes through litigation alone. Furthermore, this article examines how shareholders’ avenues for relief can be enhanced. Finally, this article compares Taiwan’s preliminary injunction—commonly used as ancillary measures in shareholders’ meeting resolution disputes—with the preliminary injunction mechanism under U.S. law. By drawing on this comparative analysis, the study aims to offer insights into improving Taiwan’s judicial approach to preliminary injunctions in resolution disputes, addressing the practical challenges and limitations faced in corporate litigation.