證券交易法立法目的係發展國民經濟並保障投資，公開原則係有助於達成此一立法目的之重要基石，同時也是降低證券詐欺發生最有效且最核心的手段。公開原則要求發行人誠實、充分且正確地揭露公司財務業務訊，有助於投資人藉由發行公司業務成效及財務狀況等，判斷有價證券實際價值作為投資與否之參考 。 我國財報不實之民事賠償責任規定於證券交易法第20條第2項與第20條之1在現行法下，獨立董事為公司負責人之一，依第20條之1第2項負推定過失責任其須證明已盡相當注意且有正當理由可合理確信財報內容無虛偽或隱匿之情事，始能免除賠償責任。惟賦予獨立董事推定過失之責是否合理？ 本文從探討獨立董事現行法所負財報不實推定過失責任之合理性出發， 同時介紹美國證券交易法、證管會相關規定及美國重要實務判決從比較法觀點，分析是否應修法改為一般過失責任。以及在推定過失責任的情況下 藉由 整理美國法制對於免責抗辯事由之適用，探討我國實務 上免責抗辯事由適用所產生之爭議，以及美國法制上董事責任限制或其補償機制適用於我國之可行性。 最後提出本文之建議，期待我國財報不實案件在法律適用上能建立一個公平合理賠償機制，以兼顧投資人保護，使國民經濟及資本市場更加健全發展。;The legislative purpose of the Securities Exchange Law is to develop the national economy and protect the investment. The general disclosure philosophy is the cornerstone to achieve this legislative purpose, and it’s also the most effective and core means to reduce the occurrence of securities fraud. The general disclosure philosophy requires the issuer to disclose the company′s financial business information honestly, fully and correctly, and to help investors judge the actual value of the securities based on the business performance and financial status of the issuing company as a reference for investment. Taiwan’s civil liability for false financial reports is stipulated in Article 20, Paragraph 2 and Article 20-1 of the Securities Exchange Act. Under the current law, independent directors are one of the issuer’s responsible persons and are liable for presumed negligence in accordance with Article 20-1, paragraph 2. They shall not be liable for damages when he or she can demonstrate that they exercised all due diligence and had legitimate cause to believe that the reports or documents contained no misrepresentations or nondisclosures. However, is it reasonable to make independent directors liable for presumed negligence? This thesis starts by exploring the rationality of the presumed negligence in the false financial report of independent directors. Also, it introduces the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, relevant regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and important judgments. Try to analyze whether the law should be revised to general negligence liability from the perspective of comparative law. In the case of presumed negligence, by sorting out the application of the U.S. legal system to the exemption defenses, discussing the disputes arising from the application of the exemption defenses in practice in Taiwan, and discussing the possibility of the limitation of directors′ liability and the application of compensation mechanism under the U.S. legal system. Finally, I put forward my suggestions, hoping to establish a more fair and reasonable compensation mechanism to take into account the protection of investors and make the national economy and capital market more sound development.
