關於股東會決議之瑕疵，依我國目前法律與實務通說下，共有三種類型：股東會決議無效、不存在與得撤銷。惟我國公司法並未規範一旦法院判決認定股東會決議無效、不存在或撤銷股東會決議後之法律效果為何，若將具瑕疵之決議限縮於選任董事之決議上，則不具董事身分之人擔任公司董事一職下，由於訴訟程序冗長，此段期間公司對外之法律關係(或董事代表公司所為之法律行為)、公司與不具董事身分之人間之法律關係及公司後續的程序召集上，其法律效果為何？日本學說上提出「連鎖瑕疵」闡述此問題。我國公司法學者通說採取對外類推適用表見代理、對內適用無因管理之見解；惟本文以為此見解將生諸多疑問，故本文參考英國法、美國法與日本學說上之見解，介紹英國公司法第161條規定並採取「事實上董事理論」以嘗試解決此問題。最後並進一步探究股東會決議瑕疵所產生的後續相關法律問題。 / According to the current law and common practice, there are three types of the defect of shareholder meeting of the company. There are void resolution, no resolution, and annulment of such resolution. However, our corporate law didn’t regulate the results once the court makes the verdict of the above mentioned types of defects of shareholder meeting of the company. If the defect of shareholder meeting of the company could be restrained on the election of directors of the resolution, while the person who was disqualified to act as a director is still in charge, the legal effect of the company’s external legal affairs, also the relationship between the company and the disqualified director, and the assembly of the meeting remain discussible. The Japanese scholars bring up a theory called the chain of defect to elaborate the upper mentioned problem. Our corporate law scholars mainly consider that the legal effect of the company’s external legal affairs should be an apparent agent situation. The company’s internal legal affairs, such as the relationship between the company and the disqualified director, and the assembly of the meeting should think as a management of affairs without mandate situation. However, my article considers that the previous perspective remains plenty of doubtful points. For this reason, my article would refer to the Companies Act 2006 (United Kingdom Company Law), Laws of the United States, and Japan’s legal theories. Moreover, I would introduce the Sec.161 of the Companies Act 2006, and adopt the theory of de facto directors in order to solve the problem. Eventually, I would analyze the extended and related legal problems of the defect of shareholder meeting of the company.

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。