• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 39
  • 39
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 40
  • 40
  • 15
  • 15
  • 14
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
31

稅捐稽徵法十二條之一對稅捐裁罰之效果 / The Effects of 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act to Tax Punishment

朱禹安 Unknown Date (has links)
雖然1997年司法院大法官作成釋字第420號解釋,首次肯認「實質課稅原則」,但直至2009年5月13日立法院才終於增定稅捐稽徵法12條之一,將實質課稅原則納入法規,解決以往在租稅法律主義下缺乏法源根據的困境,使稽徵人員在民眾所採取的交易形式外觀上雖然不符合租稅構成要件,但實際上只要與常規交易下具有相同經濟實質時,能直接針對經濟實質予以課稅。 本研究利用我國五區國稅局十年統計資料,加入政策虛擬變數、時間趨勢變數以及其交互項進行迴歸分析,根據最小平方法(OLS)及固定最小平方虛擬變數模型(LSDV),探討實質課稅原則入法後,因為稽徵執行力的提升,以平均罰鍰衡量納稅義務人租稅遵從度是否受到改變。 結果顯示實質課稅原則變數對於罰款變動有顯著正向效果,即增訂稅捐稽徵法12條之一更符合租稅法律主義,有助於稅捐單位稽徵效力的提升,所以可以顯著增加罰款收入;此外,本研究也發現實質課稅虛擬變數和時間趨勢交互項顯著為負,表示納稅義務人隨時間增加逐漸意識到稅捐稽徵法12條之一的重要性,故會減少規避行為使平均罰款額下降,顯示政府政策的執行會受到時間影響而產生不同效果。 / The concept of The Principle of Substantive Taxation got approval from No. 420 constitutional interpretation by the Grand Justices in 1997 for the first time, but not until May 13, 2009 did the legislature promulgated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act in article. Take the Principle of Substantive Taxation into legislation, tax collector have more convincing reasons to solve the dilemma of “Principle of Taxation under the Law”. Most important, it emphasizes the beneficiaries of economic substance as taxpayers, instead of according to the surface of tax regulations to determine the taxpayers. This study use panel data from National Tax Administration of five regions to examine the effects of the legislature promulgated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act in 2009. We adopt the methods of ordinary least squares (OLS) and Least Square Dummy Variable Model (LSDV), and adding the reform dummy variables, time trend variable and its interaction term into regression to examine whether the enhancement of tax enforcement could increase the average fines or not. The results show that the reform dummy variable has a positive and significant impact on tax evasion collections per fine, that is formulated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act more in line with the Principle of Taxation under the Law. Besides, the interaction term of reform dummy variable and time trend variable has a negative effect on per fine, which means that taxpayers gradually realize the importance of the regulation over time after the reform. Therefore, taxpayers will reduce tax evasion behavior to decrease the fine collections.
32

商業方法軟體專利之研究 / Subject Matter Problems and Extraterritorial infringement with Patent on Methods of Doing Business

吉玉成, Jyi, Yuh-Cherng Unknown Date (has links)
自美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於一九九八年State Street Bank一案,肯認商業方法軟體得為法定之專利標的後,全球之金融業、電腦業與網路公司莫不尋求以專利作為保護其商業方法之武器,商業方法專利申請之案件遂絡繹而來。惟商業方法軟體是否得為專利之標的,至今美國學界仍有爭議而見解不一,日本專利局係採與美國專利局相同之立場,然歐洲專利局目前似仍採否定見解。對此一議題,我國已有相當文獻討論,並均採肯定之見解。惟並未對何以可專利性之理由詳予闡述,至於專利侵害之問題,亦未就我國法深入分析。 本文擬自比較法之觀點,分析美國實務運作及學界之論述、歐洲發明專利公約及專利局實務之見解、日本法之規定與特許廳之意見,汲取其中之經驗與見解以為借鏡。第二章首先就商業方法軟體加以定義,並探究現今商業方法軟體之架構及其特殊性,以作為專利標的適格性分析之基礎。第三章分析商業方法軟體之施以專利保護,對產業與實務造成之影響。包括實務所面臨的困難﹙如先前技術資料庫之建立、審查人員之訓練、法院面臨之困難等﹚,及我國軟體產業應如何調適。第四章係探討商業方法軟體之專利標的適格性分析,依次分析美國法之規定與學說實務之見解、歐洲專利公約與專利局之立場、日本特許法之規定與特許廳之態度,以及國內學說實務之見解,並由我國專利法之立法意旨與商業方法軟體架構之特殊性,論述商業方法軟體在現今軟體發展之架構下,應非發明專利保護之標的,另亦就我國智慧財產局所公布之「電腦軟體相關發明專利審查基準」,加以探討並提出個人淺見,並摘錄智慧財產局已核准若干商業方法軟體專利之個案,加以分析。第五章自發明專利保護要件之觀點,探究商業方法軟體專利保護之問題。第六章則自美國法之觀點,分析商業方法軟體於網際網路上,所發生之跨國界專利侵害問題,並試從國際私法之角度,處理此類問題。最後,於第七章提出個人對商業方法軟體專利之淺見,並就我國現行專利制度提出未來保護方向之建議,以為結論。
33

論股東會與董事會之定足數門檻 / A study on the quorums of shareholder meetings and board meetings

施佩均, Shih, Pei Chun Unknown Date (has links)
公司法上股東會與董事會之定足數門檻(Quorum),規制股份有限公司作成決策時,應有一定比例之股份數及董事人數出席會議。然而隨著現代公司經濟規模擴張,面對眾多的股東人數,及瞬息萬變的資訊,既有規制方式是否應一併調整值得研議。為深入研究此議題,本文將先介紹定足數門檻所涉之上位概念,說明多數決原則下,為保障公司決議之作成具有一定民主基礎,應設定法定出席門檻規制,確保公司治理運行。 就股東會決議之定足數門檻,目前我國法院見解認為,此係股東會之法定成立要件,如未達定足數,股東會決議當然不成立,顯示公司法對於資本多數決原則「程序正義」與「實質正義」面向之重視。然而,我國法律實踐上,為使一般股東亦有意願出席股東會,以達定足數要求,部分公司股東會開會成本偏高。是以,本研究擬參酌外國法制及分析我國規範後,重新思考就目前規範放寬之可能性及其限度,以合理減輕實務負擔。 至於董事會決議部分,我國法亦定有定足數門檻要求,彰顯立法者認為在於追求議事效率同時,應同樣重視董事之出席義務及受任人義務。惟我國法上董事會決議區分普通與特別決議,而有不同之定足數門檻,係比較法上較為少見之立法模式。因此,本文將分析現行規範,對公司董事會運作產生何種影響、實務上發生之爭議,及是否有調整規範之必要性,期望能使公司運作更為流暢。
34

夫妻財產制之實務運作── 以民法第1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條為中心 / A Study on the Practice of Matrimonial Property Regimes - Focusing on Article 1010, 1018-1, 1022 of Civil Code

蔣瑜玲, Chiang, Yu Ling Unknown Date (has links)
法定財產制,向來為夫妻財產制之重點制度,我國婚姻當事人多適用之。觀其內涵,可分作「非常法定財產制」和「通常法定財產制」,前者規定於民法第1010條,後者規定於民法親屬編第二章第四節第二款。然而,法定財產制的相關討論,多集中於特定條文,而不利制度全貌之還原,本論文遂揀選民法第1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條等非熱門規定,以期達到拋磚引玉之效果。惟須注意的是,儘管第1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條同為廣義法定財產制之規定,考量到我國民法親屬編將第1010條置於通則之結構,本論文仍以「夫妻財產制」為題,以免造成誤會。 本論文共分作六章,第一章將說明研究動機與目的、範圍與限制、方法與架構等基本設定。 第二章的部分,基於後續第1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條「條文解析」和「實務運作」之研究需要,此處將先介紹我國夫妻財產制和法定財產制,以建構基本背景。 第三章至第五章,分別為第1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條之專章。有鑑於1010條、第1018條之1、第1022條基礎討論甚少,本論文雖以實務狀況為主要觀察目標,在架構上,仍從根本的「條文解析」出發,復延伸至「實務運作」,從大量裁判中,探究人民與法院之狀況為何。 第六章結論,本論文將綜合研究結果,作一反思,期許能為法條未來發展,貢獻棉薄之力。
35

標準制定組織之智慧財產保護政策及競爭法問題探討 / A Study on Intellectual Property Protection Strategies and Antitrust Issues of Standard-Setting Organizations

湯亦敏, Tang, Yi-min Unknown Date (has links)
「沒有標準化就沒有現代經濟。」在知識經濟時代,掌握制定規則權力者,就占有主宰市場的領導地位。由於絕大多數標準係由政府或私人組織所制定,因此,研究標準制定組織具有重要意義。此外,觀察當代立法趨勢,政府以採訂私人組織或非政府組織所擬定之產業標準的方式,擴增其管制功能,在此潮流下,採訂私人草撰標準成為法律規範一環,此舉一方面可能形成授權立法之漏洞,另一方面將迫使個人暴露於著作權侵權行為之刑事、民事以及行政制裁大帽。同時,政府將產品標準及認證之工作委由產業協會等私人組織承擔亦成主流,該項¬「公益性」作業即可能成為事實標準制定者用來限制競爭、不當逐利的手段。 本文便以上述爭議問題為出發點,討論標準制定組織所擬定之標準,特別是經過政府機關以法律規範形式採用後,是否仍該當著作權的保護客體?並將研究延伸到網路產業中標準著作權保護的適當性問題,以及針對標準這類事實編輯物的資料庫保護進行分析;其次,本文將針對一國之產業標準制定組織為研究重心,探討例如標準制定與認證中的限制競爭及獨占管制的法律問題,以及隱然成為事實標準的市場領導者涉及智慧財產權的拒絕交易紛爭等課題。然而,針對上述命題的前提要件是對標準的概念與應用有相當之瞭解,以導入標準制定組織之運作、不同層級標準制定過程之影響及其所涉及之智慧財產爭議問題研究。因此,本文將對國家標準以及行業標準制定及運用過程所涉及之著作權及競爭法問題作深入且廣泛之瞭解,以此為基礎,分析各層級標準制定體系的規範內涵,繼而詮釋一國保護行業標準之著作權與競爭法之法律規定;並提出建言作為我國標準化體系之發展、參與國際標準制定活動、標準著作權保護分析架構、事實編輯物(資料庫)保護模式、競爭法對標準與認證活動之適用以及切入拒絕交易案件等之參考。 / In a knowledge-based economy, whoever dominates rules-developing overpowers the market. Most of the standards are set by the government and private organizations; therefore, a study on standard-setting organizations is of essential value. The Government leverages its regulatory function by adopting law standards promulgated and copyrighted by non-governmental actors. Despite governmental ambitions, no one is responsible for evaluating the legitimacy of this approach ex ante and no framework exists to facilitate analysis. On the other hand, standard-developing and conformity assessment increasingly falls on the shoulders of industry associations and lead to impartiality concerns from the antitrust law perspective. Regarding standards that are generated and controlled by private actors exposing citizens to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, this paper contributes an analytical framework and proposes institutional mechanisms to implement it in terms of copyright. This paper extends by questioning if copyright would be an appropriate form to protect standards in the Internet industry. Then, it explores ways to protect compilation of facts and databases once they are de facto standards. Following the antitrust concerns, this paper focuses on industry standard-setting organizations within a specific territory to explore the antitrust and unfair competition problems confronting the role of the de facto standard-setters or the certification performers and the refusal to deal involving intellectual property issues. As foundations, this paper initiates by a detailed study of concepts and applications surrounding standardization; then, it leads to how a standards is produced, how standard-developing organizations in various levels affect the market, and how the intellectual property problems involves in standardization. In conclusion, based upon in-depth coverage of copyright and antitrust predicaments facing applications of national standards and industry standards, this paper interprets how copyright and antitrust laws work to protect business standards. At the same time, it delivers suggestions for the development of our standardization system, involvement of international standard-setting activities, an analytical framework for standards in copyright, protection for compilation of facts and databases, and how antitrust laws works when it comes to non-governmental standard-setting actors.
36

生物相似性藥品之產業分析與法律評估: 以上市許可規範與智慧財產權為核心 / The industry analysis and legal assessment of biosimilars: focusing on approval regulations and intellectual property rights

李昕彥, Li, Hsin Yen Unknown Date (has links)
生物藥品是很多先前具致命性和難以治療的疾病領域,像是癌症、自體免疫疾病及神經系統疾病內最被看好的現行新穎療法。近年來,隨著探索出突破性小分子藥物愈趨困難,加上生物藥品在新藥研發過程中有較低的折損率與較高的成功產出率,使得越來越多藥廠紛紛轉向開發利潤豐厚的大分子生物產品。此外許多暢銷生物藥品專利期即將屆至,從而帶來對相對價廉、通常被稱為原廠生物藥品仿製版本之「生物相似性藥品」的龐大治療需求。然而,由於生物藥品和小分子藥物在分子大小及結構複雜程度方面存在截然不同的特性與本質差異,因此建立一套專屬於生物相似性藥品的上市許可規範勢在必行。 作為於2010年3月23日正式簽署公告之「患者保護及可負擔照護法案」中的一部分,美國國會通過了「生物藥品價格競爭與創新法」(BPCIA)。BPCIA的生效被視為製藥產業最重要的變革之一,旨在藉由競爭達到維護公眾健康、促進生物技術創新和控制醫療支出之目的,同時取得適當之三方利益平衡。BPCIA即以Hatch-Waxman法案下的化學學名藥核准途徑為模版,創建生物藥品簡易上市申請程序。 本論文的結構主要區分為兩大部分進行研究,其一提供了製藥產業概觀與全球生物藥品市場的發展趨勢,其二則聚焦在BPCIA新建立的核准前專利爭端解決程序下,生物相似性藥品面臨「專利舞蹈」時的法律評估及智慧財產權管理。 論文的第一部分係根據從各種市場研究報告收集、整理而成的統計數據,以系統性的方式深入介紹全球製藥產業,並分析生物相似性藥品的市場機會和潛在隱憂。另外此部分亦詳細說明了生物相似性藥品的生理活性、知識斷層與製程依賴性之間的關係、分析技術對生物產品做完整定性的不足以及生物相似性藥品的開發流程。 論文的第二部分則以討論BPCIA的重要條文規定為主,包括專利舞蹈制度和上市審查要求,諸如生物相似性之證明、可互換性之認定與適應症外推。其他相關議題,包含參考藥品的法定專屬權保護期長度、生物相似性藥品自動替換之立法化、專利資訊交換機制的可能濫用及原廠與生物相似藥廠達成反競爭協議之風險皆會予以進一步探討。除此之外,本部分也介紹了歐盟和台灣生物相似性藥品上市法規的沿革與現況。 本文試圖透過對生物相似性藥品的全方位綜合研究成果,提出可行的市場進入方案及善用專利和營業祕密優勢之智慧財產權保護佈局策略。 / Biologics represent many of the most promising novel therapies for previously deadly and intractable disease areas like cancer, autoimmune disease and neurological disorders. As discovery of breakthrough small-molecule drugs becomes more difficult, together with lower attrition rate and higher productivity of biologics in the new drug research and development (R&D) process, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly turning to develop lucrative large-molecule biological products in recent years. In addition, the patents on numerous blockbuster biologics treatments will soon expire, bringing soaring demand for relatively inexpensive generic versions of originator biologics, generally known as “biosimilars.” However, due to contrasting characteristics and natural differences in terms of size and structural complexity between biologics and small-molecule drugs, it is necessary to create a regulatory pathway solely for biosimilars. As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was officially signed into law on March 23, 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The BPCIA is considered one of the more significant overhauls to the pharmaceutical industry, aiming to strike a proper balance among securing public interests, stimulating biotechnology innovation and controlling healthcare expenditure through competition. It established an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars modeled closely after the Hatch-Waxman Act’s approval process for generic chemical drugs. The structure of this thesis is divided into two major parts, of which the first part provides an overview of pharmaceutical industry and trends in the global biologics market, whereas the second part focuses on the legal assessment and intellectual property management of biosimilars under BPCIA’s new pre-approval patent dispute resolution process, the “patent dance”. The first part starts from the in-depth systematic introduction of global pharmaceutical industry based on statistics collected from various market research reports, then analyzes the market opportunities and potential concerns for biosimilars. Moreover, this part illustrates the physiological properties, the relationship between “knowledge gap”and manufacturing path-dependence, the insufficieny of analytical techniques in fully characterizing biological products, and the development process of biosimilars in details. The second part discusses key provisions of the BPCIA, including the patent dance procedures and regulatory requirements, such as demonstrating biosimilarity, interchangeability and extrapolation. Other relevant issues include the length of statutory exclusivities granted to reference products, legislations on biosimilar automatic substitution, potential abuses of patent information exchange mechanism and risks of reaching anti-competitive agreements between pioneers and biosimilar manufacturers will be further discussed. Besides, this part describes the timeline and status quo of EU and Taiwan’s biosimilar approval regulations. With comprehensive study on multiple aspects of biosimilars, this article tries to propose feasible market access plans and robust intellectual property protection strategies capitalizing upon patents and trade secrets.
37

我國保險代位理論與法制之再建構 / A Study on the Reconstruction of Insurance Subrogation in Taiwan

陳俊元, Chen, Chun-Yuan Unknown Date (has links)
保險代位之本質,可說是整個保險代位體系之核心所在。本文乃以保險代位之本質—亦即求償模式為重心,對於保險代位之相關問題,依序加以討論。本文首先自保險代位存在之法理、以及學說上對其之批評加以分析、並提出回應。在保險代位之求償模式方面,我國傳統以來循大陸法系之傳統,採取法定債權移轉理論,而與英美法有所不同;英美法之架構近年來漸受學說之重視,甚至對其有所爭議,故實有釐清之必要。本文乃對英美保險代位之本質、架構加以探索,並對其與擬制信託之融合詳加分析,以求釐清其法律關係。除了英美以外,本文亦對其他主要國家之立法例詳加分析,並歸納為大陸法系與英美法系兩大系統。而中國大陸與台灣均屬於繼受法之地位,關於保險代位求償模式、名義等,亦可見受不同立法例所影響之軌跡;其許多條款與學說見解亦有疑義,值得我國引以為戒。於分析英美法與各國立法例,並審酌我國之背景後,本文乃嘗試對我國提出「保險代位求償模式相對論」—即原則上仍採取法定債權移轉理論,但在保險人與被保險人有特定具體之特約時,則可約定採取英美法之模式、或是自行約定其他求償模式。 另外,關於不足額保險、而應負責之第三人資力不足時,保險人與被保險人之間受償順序之問題,本文將由傳統的法釋義學方法出發,藉由對立法例、實務與學說見解的分析,以重新思考相關的法理基礎。本文也將使用法律經濟分析的方法,以經濟模型重新考量代位求償過程中可能的因素,重新驗證被保險人優先受償模式對於被保險人的效用。就結論而言,在損失填補原則的架構下,被保險人優先受償模式仍應為最適的解決方案。但此原則應有以法規或嚴格意定予以排除、修正之空間。在判斷順序上,可依三階段判斷:先檢視法規有無特別規定,再檢視當事人間是否有特別約定,若均無再適用被保險人優先受償模式以分配之。 對於特別保險—如全民健康保險法、勞工保險條例、強制汽車責任保險法等中之代位體系,本文亦加以分析,並同樣認為於適當之類型中,本文之保險代位模式求償相對論亦應可加以適用。在再保險與保險代位之適用問題上,本文肯認保險人對第三人之求償無庸扣除再保險之給付。而對於再保險是否、如何適用於保險代位,本文則認為可以三階段判斷之:首先,就再保險之類型為判斷;再判斷原保險人是否欲向第三人求償;如再保險之類型適合、又原保險人不欲向第三人求償時,則應允許再保險人向第三求償。最後,總結全文提出結論;並分三階段對於我國法提出相關建議,以供未來進一步之參酌。 / The nature of subrogation can be regarded as the core of the subrogation system. This research put stress on the nature of subrogation which was the subrogation. Regarding the related problems of subrogation, they will be discussed orderly. The article firstly starts to analyze from the existence of subrogation and the criticism for the theory to provide the responses. In the aspect of the way how subrogation operates, our country traditionally follows the Continental Law System to adopt the “legal assignment theory” which is different the Anglo-American Law System. The structure of Anglo-American Law System is stressed by the theory and is very controversial. Consequently, it is necessary to figure out the truth. This research is aimed at exploring the nature and structure of common law subrogation theory and analyzes other integration of the constructive trust to figure out the law relationship. Except for Anglo-American countries, this research also analyzes the lawmaking of other countries and induces the two main systems which are Continental Law System and Anglo-American Law System. Mainland China and Taiwan belong to the status of Succession Law. Regarding the subrogation and nominal, it can be seen that the orbit is affected by different ways of lawmaking. Understandings of many clauses and theories are still uncertain. Our country should learn a lesson from it. With analyzing the ways of lawmaking of common law and each country, and considering the background of our country, the research attempts to address the “relativity theory of insurance subrogation” to our country. In principle, it still adopts legal assignment theory. However, when the insurer and insured have specific agreement, they can negotiate to adopt the Anglo-American model or make other subrogation model by themselves. Other problems can arise with regard to payment priority between the insurer and the insured, particularly in cases of underinsurance and when the responsible third party has insufficient funds to make up the difference. The present study takes the traditional rechtsdogmatik approach as its starting point, analyzing legislative precedents, practical aspects and academic theories to re-examine the underlying legal principles. The paper also makes use of economic analysis of law techniques, employing economic models to reconsider the factors that may be involved in the subrogation process, and re-examining the efficacy of the insured-whole doctrine from the point of view of the insured. The main conclusions reached are that, within the framework created by the principle of indemnity, the insured-whole doctrine is still the optimal solution; however, there may be situations in which the insured-whole doctrine must be rejected or modified in light of legal or regulatory requirements or strict interpretation. Determination can be made in three stages. Firstly, the relevant laws and regulations should be examined to determine whether any special provisions apply. Then, an examination should be made to determine whether any special agreements exist between the parties concerned. If no special legal or regulatory provisions apply and no special agreements exist, then the insured-whole doctrine can be applied. For the subrogation systems in special insurances—for examples, the National Health Insurance, Labor Insurance, and Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance, the research also analyzes them and considers that in the proper type, the relativity theory of insurance subrogation can be adopted. About the problems about reinsurance and subrogation, this research admits that insurer asks for subrogation for the third party not need to deduct from settlement of reinsurance. For reinsurer and how to apply to the subrogation, the research considers that it can be judged from three stages. If the type of reinsurance is suitable and the original insurer does not want to claim against the third party, it should be allowed that the reinsurer can claim against the third party directly. Finally, the research makes the conclusion and provides related suggestions to the law of our country to be viewed as the future reference.
38

股份有限公司股東會與董事會權限劃分-論章定股東會權限範圍 / Allocation of Power between Shareholder’s Meeting and the Board of Directors

黃柏嘉 Unknown Date (has links)
民國90年公司法修正第202條之前,即有謂股東會為萬能機關,在民國90年修正公司法第202條規定後,將公司業務之執行,除本法或章程規定應由股東會決議之事項外,均應交由董事會決議行之。此修正所帶來的最大意義在於股東會不再是萬能機關,而明確劃分股東會和董事會之間的權限。然而是否能那樣的「明確」,則未能無疑?首先,公司法如此修正後,可否說在現行公司法下,股份有限公司之機關權能已傾向董事會優位?再者,即便公司法已修正第202條之規定,董事會與股東會之間仍有權限衝突之可能。亦即除法定或章程規定應由股東會決議之事項外,均應由董事會決議行之,簡單來說,股東會仍可透過修改章程的方式,來侷限董事會權能,進而擴大自身可決議之範圍,股東會此一「擴權」方式,有無必要加以限制?其範圍應如何加以限制? 而在股東會與董事會權限衝突時,所謂「企業所有與經營分離原則」,能否扮演指導的原則,為董事會帶來更高的權力依據,抑或應尊重企業自治精神。本文並就董事持股數、經理人委任及報酬、章定特定對象交易條款容許性、公開發行制度等議題與章定股東會權限範圍衝突,提出看法及依據。
39

論股東會決議之效力—以決議瑕疵類型之探討為核心

許朕翔 Unknown Date (has links)
在強調「經營與所有分離原則」之股份有限公司法制下,股東會並非得就公司一切業務執行事項作成決議之「萬能機關」。且由於經營與所有之分離,出席股東會、行使表決權可謂係未被選任為董事、監察人之一般股東最基本之權利,亦即一般股東乃係藉由出席股東會、作成股東會決議,以形成股東之意志並參與公司之經營決策。為避免股東出席股東會、行使表決權之權益遭受不當侵害,同時為求股東會決議能正確、適法反應股東意志,並作為公司開展相關後續法律關係之正當基礎,公司法對於股東會決議存在瑕疵原因時設有相應之規範,以定其決議效力。從而,如何正確理解公司法中股東會決議瑕疵效力之相關規定,即值研究。 而在探討股東會決議瑕疵效力之相關問題前,必須先行探究股東會之法律地位與權限。於此,本文係將重心置於公司法第202條的解釋與適用。基於條文所使用之文字,本文試圖提出公司事務之類型化區分,重新建構股東會決議事項之範圍。易言之,即係將公司事務之屬性先予區分為「業務執行事項」與「非業務執行事項」,並視該事項「是否為公司法或章程規定由股東會決議」之事項,分別探討股東會是否係得就各該事項作成決議之意思決定權限主體。 在我國法制下的股東會決議瑕疵效力規範,僅有「決議得撤銷」與「決議無效」二種決議瑕疵類型。惟伴隨著學說與實務對於「決議不存在」此一概念之發展,已儼然形成我國法制關於股東會決議瑕疵效力規範之「三分化」體系。而由於此三種決議瑕疵類型在法律上係相互排斥的概念,因此某一具體之決議瑕疵原因僅能歸類為其中一種決議瑕疵類型,否則將導致法律適用關係之混沌不明。 在「決議得撤銷」部分,得撤銷者應以受到召集程序或決議方法瑕疵影響之決議為限。考量決議形成過程之公正性要求以及決議可能產生之影響,應認為無論是否為有表決權股東,亦不論其權益是否受到決議瑕疵原因之侵害,只要是股東,均得提起撤銷決議訴訟。而為了貫徹「禁反言」法理,出席股東應適用民法第56條第1項但書之規定,於股東會當場表示異議後始能取得撤銷訴權。至於未出席股東,則應認為不論其是否已合法收受股東會召集通知,均得提起撤銷決議訴訟。又,在決議作成時尚非股東之人,若符合「訴權繼受」要件者,亦得於受讓股份後提起撤銷決議訴訟。惟此「訴權繼受」之概念,解釋上其受讓人並不包括「已出席但未當場表示異議之股東」,以免減損民法第56條第1項但書規定之規範功能。而法院於審理撤銷決議訴訟時,雖有視個案情節決定是否駁回訴訟之裁量權限,然法院須對其發動裁量權限之要件寬嚴掌握得宜,以免過於忽視公司法允許股東提起撤銷決議訴訟之規範意旨。 在「決議無效」部分,由於2000年民事訴訟法之修正,將確認訴訟之標的由「法律關係」擴及至「法律關係基礎事實」後,任何符合提起確認訴訟要件之人均得提起「確認決議無效訴訟」以主張決議無效。從而過去認為不允許提起此一訴訟之主張,即應予揚棄。 在「決議不存在」部分,由於其與「決議得撤銷」之瑕疵原因僅係程度上之差別,雖然二者在法律上係屬截然可分之概念,但在具體事例之歸類定性上,有時並非容易,致使實務與學說上產生若干爭議。就此,尚有待實務與學說將其瑕疵原因予以類型化,或由立法者將其瑕疵原因予以法制化,以杜紛爭。 又,關於決議瑕疵具體之爭議問題,本文綜合整理7種於判定決議效力時尚有疑義之股東會決議瑕疵類型,歸納、分析實務與學說之看法,並提出己見。
40

論全民健康保險法上之公共安全事故代位求償制度

陳介然 Unknown Date (has links)
全民健康保險法自民國83年8月9日公告並自民國84年3月1日施行,此一社會保險制度迄今已成為我國醫療保健系統重要支幹,然而,醫療費用每年約上漲8~10%,致使民國87年3月開始,財務已有入不敷出的情形,因此中央健康保險局(保險人)有一連串開源節流的政策 民國94年2月25日全民健康保險監理委員會第117次會議,委員發言多傾向支持擴大代位求償範圍。此外,全民健保公民共識會議之與會人員,一致認為保險事故如果係可明確歸責於第三人之事由所導致,全民健保之保險人於給付後,應該向第三人代位求償,以符公平正義原則,立法院爰於民國94年5月18日修正全民健康保險法第82條,增訂公共安全事故及重大之交通事故、公害或食品中毒事件為代位求償範圍,修正後條文為:「保險對象因發生保險事故,而對第三人有損害賠償請求權者,本保險之保險人於提供保險給付後,得依下列規定,代位行使損害賠償請求權: 一、汽車交通事故:向強制汽車責任保險保險人請求。 二、公共安全事故:向第三人依法規應強制投保之責任保險保險人請求。 三、其他重大之交通事故、公害或食品中毒事件:第三人已投保責任保險 者,向其保險人請求;未投保者,向第三人請求。 前項第三款所定重大交通事故、公害及食品中毒事件之求償範圍、方式及 程序等事項之辦法,由主管機關定之。」 修法之後,雖然擴大了健保局代位求償範圍,但限制仍多,且此次修法亦未明確釐清健保局在其他領域是否亦有代位求償權 本文首先敘述我國自民國84年正式實施全民健康保險時,尚有盈餘,然而自民國87年起首見保險支出超過保險收入,至民國96年時差額更高達新台幣136億元,除了繼續開發新財源與減少支出外,有無可能利用現有的制度切實實施,消除多數國民有「中央健康保險局將全國人民當成提款機的看法」,以及使實現加害者負其責任之公平正義,故本文針對於全民健康保險法第82條第1項第2款中中央健康保險局對公共安全事故強制投保之責任保險保險人代位權之相關問題加以探討,希望對於日益惡化瀕於破產邊緣之財務有所助益,接者大略簡介我國社會保險制度的演進,包括勞工保險、公務人員保險及其相關保險、退休公務人員保險、公務人員眷屬疾病保險、退休公務人員疾病保險、退休公務人員配偶疾病保險、私立學校教職員保險及其相關保險、農民健康保險與全民健康保險之演進與概況,之後於第三章再藉由歐、美等主要國家保險理論探討保險代位求償權之理論基礎以及人身保險適用代位求償權之理由,復接者討論保險代位求償權之性質、民法上行使代位權之限制、保險法上保險人代位權之性質與全民健康保險保險人之代位求償權;於第四章則討論目前我國中央與地方法規中有哪些場所或行業係屬須強制投保公共意外責任保險以及公共安全事故中全民健康保險保險人代位求償權之構成要件;於第五章則討論全民健康保險保險人可代位求償之金額尚須受到中央健康保險局實際所支出之醫療給付與強制責任保險之保險金額限制;於第六章則討論保險對象對於中央健康保險局代位求償權之保全有協助義務以及節妨礙代位之事由與代位求償權之消滅時效;第七章則是探討中央健康保險局行使代位求償權應注意事項;最後於第八章則是結論與建議。

Page generated in 0.0256 seconds