Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Jun 2011)
商業判斷原則的角色與適用——聯電案的延伸思考 The Role and Application of Business Judgment Rule—Some Extended Thoughts on the UMC Case
Abstract
商業判斷原則應否引進台灣的董事民事責任體系中，在學界與實務界均引起強烈爭議。更令人注意的是，白領犯罪的辯護律師也經常援引此一原則為其當事人辯護。受到廣受矚目的聯電案的啟發，本文希望可以對此一原則之相關議題提供一些不同觀點。本文相信，在不適用商業判斷原則的情形下，對於董事違反其信賴義務，原告仍負有舉證責任。因此，商業判斷原則的引進，其結果並非是造成舉證責任的倒置，而是會增加原告的舉證負擔。此一看法不僅可以減弱反對此一法制移植的立論基礎，也可以澄清此一原則在刑法第342 條背信罪訴追過程中所能扮演的角色。本文的討論也可以解釋股東會承認在刑事責任確定上可能造成的影響，並對檢辯在攻防論辯上提供一些建議。 Whether the business judgment rule (“BJR”) should be imported into Taiwan’s corporate directors’ civil liability regime has been fiercely debated among scholars and practitioners. It is surprisingly noted that white collar crime defense attorneys also try to employ the BJR to protect their clients from criminal liability. Inspired by the attention-grabbing UMC case, this article seeks to offer some different thoughts on related issues. This article believes, contrary to the received wisdom, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the director’s breach of fiduciary duty under the no-BJR regime. As a result, the importation of the BJR will increase, but not shift, the burden for the plaintiff to state their claims. This view will not only weaken the case against the legal transplantation but clarify the role the BJR can play in the criminal prosecution on violations of the Article 342 of the Criminal Code. The discussion also sheds light on the impact of shareholder ratification on the determination of criminal liability and offers some guides for prosecutors and litigants to build their cases.
