第三章 臨時管理人之制度功能與定位
第二節 當司法介入公司經營：公司法相關制度之比較
我國公司法中屬於司法控制手段之規定，除了包括法院受理私人間之 訴訟，例如股東代位公司對董事提起損害賠償訴訟之類型外，尚有法院受 理聲請對公司為一定行為之類型，例如公司法第 11 條裁定解散、第 81 條 及第 322 條第 2 項選派清算人、第 124 條准許有限責任股東退股、第 282 條之 1 為重整之相關准駁、第 335 條命公司為特別清算等；於公司法外，
另有破產法建構之破產制度，亦不乏司法介入公司經營規範依據，而本文 所關注之面向為公司內部控制機能失靈時，法院如何介入及決定公司經營 狀態之繼續或終結，故以下將以公司法第 11 條裁定解散以及第 282 條以 下之重整規定為研析。
50 學者更強調，監督不代表限制，監督更不可能正當化層層管制，因為監督之目的在於 enforcement，亦即在於落實公司法所呈現之規範理念。參閱曾宛如，同註 46，頁 153。
51 參閱陳介山，同註 47，頁 101。
34
第一項 法院裁定解散
第一款 我國公司法第 11 條規定
公司法第 11 條之裁定解散，應係解決公司經營不善之方式中，效果 最嚴重者。從體例上來看，本規定置於公司法之總則部分，應可解為適 用於所有公司類型。52該規定內容為：公司之經營，有顯著困難或重大損 害時，法院得據股東之聲請，於徵詢主管機關及目的事業中央主管機關 意見，並通知公司提出答辯後，裁定解散。前項聲請，在股份有限公司 應有繼續六個月以上持有已發行股份總數百分之十以上股份之股東提出 之。另依非訟事件法第 172 條規定，公司裁定解散事件之聲請應以書面為 之。法院為裁定前，應訊問利害關係人，惟實務認為，不以訊問所有利 害關係人為必要，且徵詢主管機關及目的事業中央主管機關意見，與通 知公司提出答辯二事，並無先後順序，亦可同時為之53；又法院依公司法 第 11 條第 1 項徵詢主管機關及目的事業中央主管機關意見時，受法院徵 詢之機關自必須就該公司之經營是否有顯著困難或重大損害表示意見，
始合於條文規定，在受徵詢之機關未就此點或無法就此表示意見時，法 院不能裁定公司解散。54上開看法說明了法院不僅需踐行向主管機關及目 的事業中央主管機關徵詢意見之程序，且前揭機關應實質上表示意見，
法院始得參酌後做出准許與否之裁定。
觀諸抽象之「公司之經營，有顯著困難或重大損害時」要件，實務上 認為，所謂公司之經營，有顯著困難者，係指公司於設立登記後，開始 營業，在經營中有業務不能開展之原因。如再繼續經營，必導致不能彌 補之虧損之情形而言。因此，若公司於設立登記後，滿六個月尚未開始 營業，或開始營業後自行停止營業六個月以上者，則為中央主管機關依 公司法第 10 條第 1 款規定命令解散之問題，非同法第 11 條第 1 項法院裁 定解散之原因。55有實務裁判指出，不宜僅以公司股東間齟齬或意見不合
52 參閱枋啟民，少數股東民事訴訟救濟制度之檢討，臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，頁 53，
2007 年。
53 參閱臺灣高等法院 100 年度非抗字第 6 號裁定。
54 參閱臺灣高等法院 98 年度非抗字第 106 號裁定、臺灣高等法院座談會民事類第 25 號研討結 果。
55 參閱最高法院 76 年度台抗字第 274 號、89 年度台抗字第 264 號裁定。
35
美國模範商業公司法（Model Business Corporation Act）60§14.30 規定
61，檢察長、股東、債權人及公司本身得聲請法院解散公司。其中§ 14.30
60 模範商業公司法係美國律師協會（American Bar Association；簡稱ABA） 在1950年所頒布，
並定期修訂，其中包括1984年全面性修訂而成為修正模範商業公司法（Revised Model Business Corporation Act）以及最近一次之修訂則在2005年。據統計，美國境內有30個州的公司法主要採 納該法案，可謂模範商業公司法對美國各州的公司立法影響極大，網址：
http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html (最後瀏覽日期：2013年4月6日)
61 原文，MODEL BUS. CORP. ACT ANN§ 14.30：”(a) The [name or describe court or courts] may dissolve a corporation:
(1) in a proceeding by the attorney general if it is established that:
(i) the corporation obtained its articles of incorporation through fraud; or
(ii) the corporation has continued to exceed or abuse the authority conferred upon it by law;
(2) in a proceeding by a shareholder if it is established that:
(i) the directors are deadlocked in the management of the corporate affairs, the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock, and irreparable injury to the corporation is threatened or being suffered, or the business and affairs of the corporation can no longer be conducted to the advantage of the shareholders generally, because of the deadlock;
(ii) the directors or those in control of the corporation have acted, are acting, or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent;
(iii) the shareholders are deadlocked in voting power and have failed, for a period that includes at least
36
two consecutive annual meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have expired; or (iv) the corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted;
(3) in a proceeding by a creditor if it is established that:
(i) the creditor’s claim has been reduced to judgment, the execution on the judgment returned unsatisfied, and the corporation is insolvent; or
(ii) the corporation has admitted in writing that the creditor’s claim is due and owing and the corporation is insolvent; or
(4) in a proceeding by the corporation to have its voluntary dissolution continued under court supervision.
(5) in a proceeding by a shareholder if the corporation has abandoned its business and has failed within a reasonable time to liquidate and distribute its assets and dissolve.”
62 原文，MODEL BUS. CORP. ACT ANN§ 14.30：” (b) Section 14.30(a)(2) shall not apply in the case of a corporation that, on the date of the filing of the proceeding, has shares that are: (i) listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or on any exchange owned or operated by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, or listed or quoted on a system owned or operated by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; or
(ii) not so listed or quoted, but are held by at least 300 shareholders and the shares outstanding have a market value of at least $20 million (exclusive of the value of such shares held by the corporation’s subsidiaries, senior executives, directors and beneficial shareholders owning more than 10 percent of such shares).”
63 See American Bar Association, MODEL BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT : WITH SELECTED OFFICIAL COMMENTS,280（revised through 2003）.
37
司，法院可考量該公司股東人數以及之交易市場狀況，以裁量是否准許股 東聲請解散。
由於被排除作為§ 14.30（2）聲請主體之股東，可尋求其他救濟途徑，
例如依違反受任人義務對於公司負責人請求損害賠償或依同法§ 7.48（a）
聲請法院任命監管人（custodian）或管理人（receiver）。因§ 14.30（2）
屬於較為概括之規定，而§ 7.48（a）適用範圍較小，當公司同樣面臨不可 回復之損害，後者應優先於前者適用。且訴諸解散公司之訴訟，將導致股 東間之人際和諧遭致難以彌補之破壞，更不可能繼續謀求共同利益或透過 清算、收回投資64之方式妥適處理公司問題，因此，§ 7.48（a）及§ 14.30
（2）各有其主要強調之規範目的。例如§ 14.30（2）所舉之公司僵局可能 影響及於整體之公司財富，但其所著重之處為該聲請股東之個人投資，以 壓迫（oppression）為例，通常係聲請股東為對抗特定股東之行為。相反的，
聲請選派監管人或管理人則係重於公司整體，主要為了保護全體股東、債 權人及其他利害關係人之利益。此外，§ 14.30（2）之不合法（illegal）以 及詐欺（fraudulent）行為，股東雖能藉由其他訴因使公司獲得補償，然而 本條所強調者在於該行為將嚴重侵害聲請股東之個人利益，反之，§ 7.48
（a）下之詐欺行為或董事會僵局，必須具備或將有無法回復損害之虞之要 件，以確保選派監管人或管理人之合法性，故§ 7.48（a）允許各種公司之 股東作為聲請主體。
第二目 英國法
英國法將司法解散制度規定於一九八六年破產法（the Insolvency Act 1986），於該法§122（1）65列舉得向法院聲請解散之事由包括：（a）公
64 例如依模範商業公司法§ 14.34 的” the buy-out provisions”由公司或其他股東以公平價格收購原 告股東之股份。
65 原文，The Companies Act §122：” Circumstances in which company may be wound up by the court.
(1)A company may be wound up by the court if—
(a)the company has by special resolution resolved that the company be wound up by the court,
(b)being a public company which was registered as such on its original incorporation, the company has not been issued with a trading certificate under section 761 of the Companies Act 2006 (requirement as to minimum share capital) and more than a year has expired since it was so registered,
(c)it is an old public company, within the meaning of the Schedule 3 to the Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2009,
(d)the company does not commence its business within a year from its incorporation or suspends its business for a whole year;
38
司經特別決議而聲請解散；（b）大眾公司註冊滿一年後尚未依二〇〇六 年公司法（the Companies Act 2006）§ 761 取得交易憑證；（c）依二〇〇六 年公司法 Order 2009 所定義之舊型大眾公司；（d）公司設立後滿一年尚未
(e)except in the case of a private company limited by shares or by guarantee, the number of members is reduced below 2,
(f)the company is unable to pay its debts,
(fa) at the time at which a moratorium for the company under section 1A comes to an end, no voluntary arrangement approved under Part I has effect in relation to the company
(g)the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.”
66 原文，The Companies Act §124：”Application for winding up：”
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, an application to the court for the winding up of a company shall be by petition presented either by the company, or the directors, or by any creditor or creditors (including any contingent or prospective creditor or creditors), contributory or contributories, or by a liquidator (within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the ECRegulation) appointed in proceedings by virtue of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation or a temporary administrator (within the meaning of Article 38 of the EC Regulation) or by the designated officer for a magistrates' court in the exercise of the power conferred by section 87A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (enforcement of fines imposed on companies), or by all or any of those parties, together or separately.
(2)Except as mentioned below, a contributory is not entitled to present a winding-up petition unless either—
(a)the number of members is reduced below 2, or
(b)the shares in respect of which he is a contributory, or some of them, either were originally allotted to him, or have been held by him, and registered in his name, for at least 6 months during the 18 months before the commencement of the winding up, or have devolved on him through the death of a former holder.
(3)A person who is liable under section 76 to contribute to a company’s assets in the event of its being wound up may petition on either of the grounds set out in section 122(1)(f) and (g), and subsection (2) above does not then apply; but unless the person is a contributory otherwise than under section 76, he may not in his character as contributory petition on any other ground.
(3A)A winding-up petition on the ground set out in section 122(1)(fa) may only be presented by one or more creditors
(4)A winding-up petition may be presented by the Secretary of State—
(a)if the ground of the petition is that in section 122(1)(b) or (c), or (b)in a case falling within section 124A or 124B below.
(4AA)A winding up petition may be presented by the Financial Services Authority in a case falling within section 124C(1) or (2).
(4A)A winding-up petition may be presented by the Regulator of Community Interest Companies in a case falling within section 50 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004.
(5)Where a company is being wound up voluntarily in England and Wales, a winding-up petition may be presented by the official receiver attached to the court as well as by any other person authorised in that behalf under the other provisions of this section; but the court shall not make a winding-up order on the petition unless it is satisfied that the voluntary winding up cannot be continued with due regard to the interests of the creditors or contributorie.”
39
於二人之公司；或者於聲請解散前 18 個月內已持有股份達 6 個月以上，
且股份係原始取得或持有並登記在該聲請者之名義下；以上並需符合同法
§76 要件始得為之。此外，尚有主管機關、英國金融監理局、官方之接管 人或經授權者為適格之聲請人。
而§ 122（1）（g）「公平且衡平的」要件（just and equitable）在英國 判例法之累積過程中，學者指出：「若要法院同意依據本款規定解散公司，
一般而言這種公司具備以下一種以上之特色：1.股東彼此間具有相互信賴 之關係（mutual confidence）；如果公司之前身為合夥，則此種關係較易被
一般而言這種公司具備以下一種以上之特色：1.股東彼此間具有相互信賴 之關係（mutual confidence）；如果公司之前身為合夥，則此種關係較易被