文章詳目資料

臺北大學法學論叢 TSSCI

  • 加入收藏
  • 下載文章
篇名 民法中強行禁止規定之效力於商法領域之討論—以公司法中公司貸與資金限制為中心
卷期 81
並列篇名 A Commercial Law’s Discussion on the Legal Weight of the Imperative or Prohibitive Provision of the Civil Code
作者 陳彥良
頁次 001-043
關鍵字 強制規定禁止規定效力規定取締規定資本維持原則德國股份法公司資產保護Imperative provisionProhibitive provisionGermany company lawPrinciple of capital maintenanceProtection of company assetTSSCI
出刊日期 201203

中文摘要

就我國民法而言,強行規定主要之功能在於限制契約自由,乃至於限制當事人之意思自主。強行規定不問當事人意思如何,一律適用。強行規定一般分為強制與禁止規定。當事人約定之內容若牴觸禁止規定中之效力規定,至少該牴觸之部分,不發生法律規範拘束力。在法律行為違反商法禁止條文之有效性的檢驗上,除了民法要件之檢驗外,亦須同時檢驗在商法領域中之禁止條款本身真正之目的和意義,以及法理解釋上之一致性。我國公司法第15條公司禁止資金貸放之規定,如同多數見解一般,其為避免公司資金流失維持資本充實之規定,也就是說係資本維持原則之特殊性具體化之規定,法性質上係維護資本維持原則之禁止法並未有誤,但該違法貸放之法律行為是否在私法上亦應使之無效?是否即應依民法方式,在效力有疑義時原則上便將民法第71條視為解釋規則,先推定無效?還是體認在商法中許多公司法上之特殊關係已與一般民法之規則有所差異,而做出不同的效力判斷?公司法第15條規定之定性為何,學說上並無共識。其規定究為取締規定,抑或係屬效力規定?容有討論之必要。在法條體例上,在公司法第15條2項之規定:「公司負責人違反前項規定時,應與借用人連帶負返還責任;如公司受有損害者,亦應由其負損害賠償責任。」由該項可得知,借用人與負責人有連帶返還責任,此返還義務之規定,到底是民法上不當得利之特殊規定,還是商法上一個獨立自主之返還請求權,其實都是可以在有效無效判定後得出一個簡單之結論,因同樣一個返還請求權,可以有不同之解讀,本文擬由德國法之借鏡做論理之分析並得出結論,並指出商法領域在這部分應走出一條自己的路。

英文摘要

According to the Article 15 Company Law of Taiwan, “Unless otherwise under any of the following circumstances, the capital of a company shall not be lend to any shareholder of the company or any other person: 1. Where an inter-company or inter-firm business transaction calls for such lending arrangement; or 2. Where an inter-company or inter-firm short-term financing facility is necessary provided that the amount of such financing facility shall not exceed forty percent of the amount of the net value of the lending enterprise. The responsible person of a company who has violated the provisions of the preceding Paragraph shall be liable, jointly and severally with the borrower, for the repayment of the loan at issue and for the damages, if any, to company resulted there-from.” This Article is one kind of the prohibitive provision. According to the Article 71 Taiwan civil Law, “A juridical act which violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the act is void except voidance is not implied in the provision.” This Study first is going to introduce and analyze the prohibitive provision of the civil code for its original thought, principal goal and major content. Then this research will introduce the Article 15 Company Law of Taiwan. In the end, this Study is going point out, that Taiwan should fine its own way of the System prohibitive provision in for its next generation.

相關文獻