論財報不實民事求償訴訟之交易因果關係

Abstract

依證券交易法第 20 條之 1（以下稱「本條」），財報不實致投資人損失時，行為人應負民事賠償責任。在民事賠償訴訟中，投資人原告需證明系爭不實財報與其投資決定具有交易因果關係，惟實際上非常困難，在公開證券交易市場更是如此。為舒緩原告的舉證困難，不少實務判決援引美國法上的「對市場詐欺理論」推定交易因果關係，但目前未形成統一見解，個案可能取決於承審法官的法律見解，具高度不確定性。另外，本條允許持有人亦能求償，惟持有人是否應適用「對市場詐欺理論」或運用其他的方式緩解其舉證困難，司法實務就此亦莫衷一是。本文擬以研究近期司法判決出發，輔以美國法制發展觀察，就近期司法實務判決與國內學說作一詳細梳理與分析，最後提出本文建議。

According to Section 20-1 of Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act (this Section), in a case involving financial misrepresentation, the tortfeasors shall be liable for any resulting damages suffered by investors who rely on such false financial statement. In a civil case, the plaintiffs (investors) shall prove that a transaction causation exists between the alleged misrepresentation of the defendants and decisionmaking of the plaintiffs. However, that requirement of burden of proof is very difficult to be satisfied as a matter of fact, especially in cases involving transactions in an open securities market. In order to alleviate the burden of the plaintiffs, some Taiwan’s courts introduce the fraud-on-the-market theory to presume the existence of transaction causation. However, courts’ opinions diverge in this regard and whether to presume the existence of transaction causation in a given case depends and may be inconsistent. This Section also allows securities holders can bring an action, but how can they can prove the transaction causation will be an another issue. This article argues that the transaction causation may be presumed based on Section 277 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure due to the similar reasons supporting the fraud-on-the-market theory. However, a future legislation to officially introduce the theory is highly suggested and thus can prevent courts from having divergent opinions. In the meantime, the current provision that authorizes securities holders to sue shall be deleted because they do not transact any deals and simply holding the securities would not justifiably to presume their reliance on the misrepresentation by the defendants.