有限公司出資轉讓限制之研究 ──以我國實務分析為中心

Abstract

本文聚焦於我國公司法第111條，探討有限公司出資轉讓限制中「同意」、「轉讓」與「他人」、「優先受讓權」四大構成要素之解釋爭議，分析學說與實務見解間的分歧，並提出具體修法建議；鑑於有限公司於臺灣中小企業中的占比極高，該條文之明確性與可預測性，對公司治理與股權流動性均具關鍵意義。 研究方法採文獻分析、法實證研究與比較法觀察三軌並進：一方面蒐集整理學理文獻與立法沿革；另一方面分析裁判資料庫中相關判決，歸納法院於出資轉讓案件中對「同意」方式、「轉讓」型態、「他人」定義、「優先受讓權」適用條件之認定標準；並援引美國閉鎖性公司制度與有限責任公司制度作為對照，觀察其如何建構轉讓限制與章程自治間之平衡。 實務觀察顯示，法院對於「同意」之表達方式、時間點及門檻，「轉讓」是否涵蓋贈與、借名契約終止及退股等行為，以及「他人」是否包括公司既存股東等問題，均缺乏穩定見解；至於「優先受讓權」是否須以達成同意門檻為前提、拒絕承受是否視為同意等，亦呈現判決分歧，造成制度適用不一與裁判結果落差。 本文建議，應修正第111條條文，明確各要件之定義與判斷標準，並賦予公司章程適度補充空間，提升制度的彈性與可操作性；另可借鏡美國法上轉讓審查機制與章程設計自由之理念，兼顧閉鎖性維持與資本流動之需求，強化法律適用的安定性與一致性。

This thesis focuses on Article 111 of the Company Act of Taiwan. It explores the interpretive controversies surrounding four key elements in the restrictions on the transfer of capital contributions in limited companies: “consent,” “transfer,” “another person,” and the “right of first refusal.” The study analyzes divergences between academic theories and judicial practice. It also offers specific legislative recommendations. Given that limited companies account for a significant proportion of Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises, the clarity and predictability of this provision are essential to both corporate governance and the liquidity of ownership interests. This research adopts a threefold methodology: doctrinal analysis, empirical study, and comparative law. It first surveys academic literature and legislative history to understand the theoretical framework. Second, it examines court decisions to identify how judges determine the form and timing of consent, the legal scope of “transfer,” the statutory meaning of “another person,” particularly whether it includes existing shareholders or the company itself, and the conditions for applying the right of first refusal. Third, it draws comparisons with U.S. law. In particular, it focuses on close corporations and Limited Liability Companies to see how transfer restrictions are balanced against charter autonomy in those contexts. Judicial practice in Taiwan reveals considerable inconsistency. Courts differ on how consent should be expressed, when it should be given, and what threshold is required. There is also no consensus on whether acts such as gifts, the end of a name-lending relationship, or shareholder withdrawal with capital redemption count as “transfers.” The meaning of “another person” is equally contested, especially regarding whether existing shareholders are included. As for the right of first refusal, courts disagree on whether it requires prior consent and whether a refusal to buy implies agreement. These differences have led to inconsistent applications and unpredictable rulings. This thesis argues that Article 111 should be amended. It should provide clearer definitions and standards for each element, while also allowing room for supplemental regulation by the company’s charter. Drawing on U.S. legal experience, including approval procedures and contractual flexibility, the study proposes a framework that upholds the closed nature of limited companies while enabling reasonable capital fluidity. Such reform would enhance both legal certainty and uniformity in practice.