公司登記不實之撤銷規範的研究-以SOGO條款為中心

Abstract

SOGO案自2002年以來纏訟近20年期間，除涉案當事人或公司外，前總統陳水扁家人的禮卷風波（總統）、辦理公司登記的經濟部（行政）、負責審判的法院（司法）、提出調查報告的監委（監察），乃至因修訂公司法涉嫌收賄的立委（立法）等一路觀察下來，本案讓中央政府部門、朝野政黨也都捲入此一無止盡的「司法黑洞」，大概只有考試院倖免於外了。\n此一商業史上的世紀大案，其中一項法律爭議涉及公司法第9條第4項的解釋適用，該條項因2018年新修正而以「SOGO條款」廣為人知。實務上，雖然很多公司因為它而被主管機關撤銷設立登記或其他登記，但自立法50年以來一直是非常冷門的條文，公司法教科書幾乎都是條文照抄帶過，甚少被重視與討論，也無相關專文進行討論，直到SOGO案爆發。\n筆者認為，公司法第9條第4項的法理之爭，重要的並非條文所稱「偽造變造」的文義範圍，真正的關鍵在於主管機關在撤銷登記時裁量權的行使。本論文從宏觀的觀察視角，將支配50年來公司法第9條第4項的制度設計或發展軌跡，歸納、稱為「聯結論」的思維模式，並指出此一模式造成歷來的解釋矛盾、規定本身的形骸化，以及新修法無法處理類似SOGO案的案件。\n鑑於SOGO條款以及其所關聯的公司登記撤銷的制度整體，未見深入研究與統整，且如果仍停留在聯結論現行論述的說文解字，以及舊有的貧乏論述，就只能繼續深陷形式審查的路徑依賴，無法自拔。故本論文擬分析、歸納過往實務案例與解釋、SOGO案後所累積的文獻，以及整合公司法、行政法及其他法理論，描繪出公司登記之撤銷制度的整體輪廓，並提出「裁量論」的概念，重新架構公司法第9條第4項的論述，以及定位主管機關於公司登記核駁或撤銷的審查爭議。

The SOGO case has gathered increasing public attention since 2002 as this black hole’s gravity has attracted former president Chen Shui-bian (in relation to the gift certificate case), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (in relation to the corporate registration case), the Judiciary (in relation to the trial of various issues relating to SOGO), the Control Yuan (in relation to its investigation reports), and the Legislature (in relation to the indictment of legislators in the SOGO bribery case) into it.\n\nThe 2018 amendment to Section 4 of Article 9 of the Corporations Act (“Amended Article”), which has been dubbed the “SOGO Provision”, is one of the most significant changes to Taiwan’s Corporations Act and has become a hotly debated issue. Although, in practice, the central competent authority has nullified the corporate registration of many companies based on this provision, judicial and academic discussion on this provision has been unpopular among lawyers and legal scholars until the reporting of the SOGO case.\nBy adopting a macro perspective, the thesis first analyzes important judicial interpretations and cases relating to the Amended Article and legal materials accumulated by the SOGO case. It then restructures the Amended Article by combining company law with administrative law and other legal jurisprudence and incorporating the concept of “administrative discretion” into the Amended Article. The thesis concludes that the 2018 amendment is unlikely to succeed because the key issue of the Amended Article should be the exercise of administrative discretion by the central competent authority when granting or nullifying corporate registration, rather than literal interpretation of “forged or altered documentation” as prescribed by Section 4 of Article 9 before the 2018 amendment.