第一章為緒論，介紹本論文研究動機、研究目的、研究方法與範圍，以及論文的章節架構。 第二章為創投事業的介紹，以創投事業的基本架構作基礎，就美國、日本以及我國創投事業的運作模式、主體以及創投事業的特性，例如，閉鎖性、契約性及代理問題等作介紹，並從創投事業的特性來介紹適用於美國多數創投事業選用的組織型態－有限合夥。分析有限合夥的特性以及有限合夥適合於創投事業的原因。 由於創投事業特重契約關係，就契約與組織法之間的相關性，本文於第三章作論述。第三章探究組織的本質，從新古典理論、寇斯的廠商理論再到契約連鎖理論，探討組織產生的原因以及組織與契約間的差異，進而論述在契約自由的情況下，契約、市場、法規範三者的補充互動關係，法規範的角色與介入契約及市場的情形。在契約無法有效解決所有交易上發生的問題而產生侷限性時，法規範可作為補充的角色。亦即，組織法應當作為提供企業經營者降低契約草擬成本的範本，以任意規定為主。 第四章為我國法制現況的介紹，闡述我國現有組織法上的缺失以及創投事業在適用股份有限公司下產生的問題，並以美國、日本有限合夥法的規定與我國現有的組織法規作進行比較分析，釐清有限合夥法規是否可補我國現有組織規範之不足。同時就我國創投事業的角度，分析有限合夥法引進後對其產生的影響及效益，進一步分析除了創投事業，有限合夥法的引進對於電影產業適用之可能性，作為有限合夥法立法之呼聲。 第五章為我國有限合夥法之立法建議。本文先介紹我國有限合夥法草案的立法背景，並介紹於2004年、2007年制定的有限合夥法草案，同時就本文於第三章對於組織法規之定義及性質，論述草案既有的缺失，並以美國、日本有限合夥規為參考對象，提出我國有限合夥法草案的立法建議以及有限合夥法通過後其他相關配套法規之修訂。 第六章為結論，總結本文各章之重點及對於有限合夥法引進之迫切需求。

現代創業投資活動主要崛起於第二次世界大戰後，我國自1984年引進創投事業發展迄今，對科技事業之發展頗具成效。然自2000年起政府基於租稅公平，取消促進產業升級條例原來賦予創投事業股東的投資抵減優惠，使得我國創投事業資金來源大幅減少。 目前我國創投事業面臨的困境有：一、資金募集困難；二、投資績效不彰；三、國內投資案源不足；四、欠缺熟悉國外創投運作的人才；五、國內外創業投資事業組織型態之不同；六、尚未能開放退休基金投資創投事業。 本研究係探討創投事業法制上相關問題，主要發現節錄如下：一、我國對創投事業之管制方式，已由管理放寬為輔導協助。二、建議適度放寬創投事業之資金來源限制。創投事業之資金來源甚廣，本研究討論之範圍為金融機構之投資限制、政府基金及四大基金之投資等。其中，放寬四大基金投資創投事業，向來為國內創投業界及創投公會之期望，然數年來仍未能達成該項目標。主要為：1.相關法令之限制，2.投資創投事業之風險控管問題。三、利用資本市場活動，協助創投事業退出。四、我國創投事業大部份係委託基金管理公司來管理，故形成雙層的公司治理結構，與國外創投契約型的治理結構不盡相同。五、引進國外有限合夥法制，與國際接軌。 惟引進有限合夥組織時，需考量制度本身之優劣，國情及使用者需求之不同。在有限合夥制度中，一般合夥人必須負無限清償責任，另一方面有限合夥人僅扮演出資者，完全不介入管理。對我國現行投資者習慣依出資比例，分配董監事席次，是否願意僅出資而不介入經營，尚待評估。 / The modern venture capital activities were incepted after World War II. The operation of venture capital were introduced to Taiwan in 1984, having a beneficial impact to the development of Taiwan’s science and high technology. However, since 2000 for the sake of Tax Equity, Our government abolish The Statute for Upgrading Industries was given to venture capital investment in the cause of the shareholders preferential credit, making the cause of Taiwan’s venture capital funding sources substantially reduced. Currently, Taiwan’s venture capital business is facing difficulties are: first, fund-raising is difficult; Second, poor investment performance; Third, the case of domestic investment was not enough; Fourth, the lack of venture capitalist are familiar with the operation of foreign talent; five, types of organizations of domestic and foreign venture capital business are different; six, have not allow pension fund to invest in venture capital business. In this study, is to explore the legal system on venture capital related issues, excerpts from major findings are as follows: First, The control of Taiwan’s venture capital business is from management to relax for the guidance and assistance. Second, it is proposed to deregulate venture capital funding source restrictions. Venture capital business have a wide range of funding sources, this study is to discuss the scope of financial institutions of investment restrictions, government funds and four pension funds. Among them, the relaxation of four pension funds wae the domestic venture capital industry and the Association of venture capital’s expectations, but over the years fail to reach the goal. Mainly for: 1. Relevant legal’s restrictions, 2. The risk management issues of venture capital business. Third, the use of capital market activities to withdraw from the venture capital business. Fourth, the majority of Taiwan’s venture capital business is managed by fund management company, so it’s formed a two-tier corporate governance structure, with foreign venture contractual governance structure is different. Fifth, the introduction of foreign limited partnership law. However, the introduction of a limited partner organizations, is need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the system itself, the national conditions and needs of different users. In the limited partnership system, the general partner must bear the responsibility of unlimited liquidity, on the other hand, limited partner only play a role of investors, and not allow to intervene the management of venture capital business. Habits of our existing investors is familiar with in accordance with the proportion of funding, to allocate the seats of the Director board, are doubtful only willing to finance and not to intervene the operation, yet to be evaluated.

專門職業過去向以其負擔無限責任豎立專業形象，然英美等大型訴訟的發生反使得專業人士成了求償的「深口袋」，這正是英美有限責任合夥制度產生的濫觴。 英美的有限責任合夥立法初衷，係為律師、會計師等專業人士承擔無限責任尋求解套的途徑，而面對我國專門職業者如律師、會計師等，亦遭遇大案，面臨無限責任沈重負擔之際，本論文嘗試從英美法制，尤其是以美國法制為著眼點，尋求制度引進的可行性。事實上令專業負有限責任，在美國尚可組成專業公司或有限責任企業，然此兩種制度除了稅制考量外，也較偏向公司經營管理，甚至因為可以公開招募而容易觸動聯邦證券交易法的干預，也因此，有限責任合夥延續舊有合夥法律關係的組織特性，廣受傳統上以合夥成立的專業組織所青睞。 以美國有限責任合夥法制而言，其本質為合夥，因此其優勢為保有合夥諸多彈性自由的管理規則，賦予合夥人廣大的協議空間，另一方面使合夥人僅負有限責任，免除無限責任的負累，然反面觀之，其最爭議者在於債權人保護的疑慮，美國於2001年爆發恩隆弊案，涉案的安達信會計師事務所正是於伊利諾州註冊登記為有限責任合夥，有限責任合夥在恩隆案中於是受到前所未有的考驗，事實上在美國各州，也透過保險、獨立基金的設置甚至揭開面紗法則適用不同程度保障債權人。 相較之下，英國的有限責任合夥法制，則以公司法為其內涵，因此有限責任合夥法受到更多的管理與限制，除了內部管理沿襲合夥的規定外，在事務執行及破產清算等，均需依循公司法規的管制，在債權人保護上英國法則直接在其有限責任合夥法規定成員擔保及資產取回的機制。 本文認為在立法走向上，得借鏡美國法制，另立新法，使有限責任合夥維持其合夥本質，並賦予法人格，且加強債權人保護之配套措施，期能提供專業組織架構的另一選擇。 / Professionals such as accountants and lawyers used to keep its reputation by taking unlimited liability. However, such unlimited liability makes these professionals to be deep pockets, as the result of the frequent lawsuits in recent years. Due to this reason, adopting limited liability partnership (LLP) seems to be the solution. LLP is a form of doing business, combining the feature of a limited corporation and the flexibility of a general partnership. LLP in United Kingdom and United States all granted the privilege of limited liability to the innocent partners, also keeping their personal assets apart from the creditors’ claim. LLP is available to all types of business in UK; however, in some US states, the LLP is only available to specific licensed professionals. Because of the character of the limited liability, protecting the interest of the creditors would be the most significant problem. To solve this dilemma, US adopt several methods such as using the insurance, doctrine of piercing the veil and creating the asset segregation to balance the interest between the professionals and the creditors. In UK, the company law and insolvency law all tried to cover LLP, in order to keep the LLP’s assets as a guarantee to creditors; such laws also request to disclose important business information of prospective risks to the public. Besides, both UK and US laws require the word “LLP” must be specified in the name of any LLP organizations. In 2001, the Enron scandal was a shock to the world. Arthur Andersen, a well known LLP accounting firm which provides dishonest service for Enron, has triggered the debate of whether LLP is still appropriate. Therefore, my study is going to analyze the pros and cons of LLP in the following chapter. Because of the unlimited liability is the only choice for professionals in Taiwan, we are going to learn from the UK and US laws. As for my conclusion, it is necessary enact an LLP Act to provide an alternative to the professionals.