論夫妻短線交易合併持股之歸入權行使

A Critical Study of Disgorgement of Short-Swing to the Spouse

10.6199/NTULJ.201903_48(1).0005

莊永丞(Yung-Cheng Chuang)

短線交易 ； 實質受益人 ； 配偶間合併持股 ； 歸入權 ； 連帶責任 ； short-swing transaction ； beneficial owner ； holding shares by spouse ； disgorgement ； joint and several liability

臺大法學論叢

48卷1期（2019 / 03 / 01）

211 - 262

繁體中文

若配偶一方為董事、監察人、經理人或持股超過10%之大股東時，由於一方已確定為內部人，故將他方之持股合併計入計算獲利，並進而請求該內部人負擔吐出利益之責，固無疑問。然而，本文所欲討論之爭議，在於若配偶各自均非前述之內部人，但若合計持股則成為超過10%之大股東（內部人），據此，是否亦有短線交易歸入權之適用？本文以為準用證券交易法第22條之2第3項之前提，在於須先構成該條所規範之主體，亦即必須先該當董事、監察人、經理人與持股超過10%之大股東後，始可依第157條第5項準用第22條之2第3項之規定。至於歸入主體是否該當「持股超過10%之大股東」，論證方法應著重於持股超過10%大股東規範意涵之探究，藉美國Rule 13d-3與Rule 13d-5之法理，檢視被告有無控制系爭股票之投票權及投資決策權，以作為是否為規範之主體之判準。申言之，證券交易法第157條「持股超過10%股東」之判斷標準應與第43條之1共同取得超過10%之股份者相同，而司法院釋字586號解釋之概念，也應予以參酌。最後，除非可確定夫或妻之一方，具有控制他方系爭股票之投票權及投資決策權，使其成為實質應負歸入利益之人，否則，公司應向夫或妻請求連帶返還短線交易之利得。

In general, beneficial ownership of securities under the Securities Exchange Act depends on whether a shareholder has the power either to vote the securities or to dispose of them. The FSC has adopted this definition for purpose of determining ownership by 10 percentage shareholder. According to Securities Exchange Act §22-2(3), this means that spouse and other family members (even if they share pecuniary benefits) are not the beneficial owners of each other's stock for §22-2(3) purpose unless that can control its voting or disposition. This regulatory definition deviates from that adopted by some early courts which focused on whether the shareholder shared in the pecuniary benefits of ownership. The critical issue that Securities Exchange Act §157(5) shall apply to §22- 2(3) is whether wife and husband are treated as a single beneficial owner. If so, their individual 6 percent holdings would be combined. As a beneficial owner of more than 10 percentage, the purchases by husband would be matched with the sale by wife to produce a recoverable profit. In each case, they beneficially owned more than 10 percent immediately before the transaction. If, however, they are not the beneficial owner of the other's shares, neither can be liable because neither individually surpassed the 10 percent threshold. About this issue, we could consult Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the SEC, holdings of shareholders percent must be aggregated if one shareholder has voting or disposition control over the other's shares. Rule 16a- 1(a)(for the purpose of determining whether shareholder own more than 10 percent, look to investment/voting control rule). In this case, unless husband or wife had control over the other's shares, there would be no beneficial ownership. This is an unusual result, which essentially permits family members to hold and trade outside the strictures of §16 so long as no family member holds more than 10 percent of the company's stock and they do not enter into any arrangement to vote or dispose of the others' stock. This means that even if husband and wife share the financial benefits of ownership, they are not deemed to be beneficial owners of each other's shares, making their transactions unmatchable.

1. 王千維(2002)。論可分債務、連帶債務與不真正連帶債務（上）。國立中正大學法學集刊，7，147-231。
   連結：
2. 王千維(2002)。論可分債務、連帶債務與不真正連帶債務（上）。國立中正大學法學集刊，7，147-231。
   連結：
3. 王千維(2002)。論可分債務、連帶債務與不真正連帶債務（下）。國立中正大學法學集刊，8，3-65。
   連結：
4. 王千維(2002)。論可分債務、連帶債務與不真正連帶債務（下）。國立中正大學法學集刊，8，3-65。
   連結：
5. 陳忠將(2010)。多數債務人間求償關係之法律問題研究：以德國民法為中心之探討。東吳法律學報，21(4)，39-85。
   連結：
6. 曾宛如(2011)。2010 年公司與證券交易法發展回顧。臺大法學論叢，40(特刊)，1877-1906。
   連結：
7. Jacobs, A. S.(1987).An Analysis of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.New York Law School Law Review,32(2&3),209-700.
8. Reardon, P. J.(1984).The Significance of Congressional Intent and Statutory Purpose in Defining Profits Realized in Section 16(b) Litigation: CBI Industries v. Horton.Connecticut Law Review,16(2),433-448.
9. Taylor, E.(1997).Teaching an Old Law New Tricks: Rethinking Section 16.Arizona Law Review,39(4),1315-1360.
10. Wang, W. K. S.,Steinberg, M. I.(1996).Insider Trading.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
11. 林國全(1999)。證券交易法第一五七條短線交易歸入權之研究。中興法學，45，261-311。
12. 林誠二(2010).債法總論新解：體系化解說（下）.臺北:瑞興.
13. 孫森焱(2006).民法債編總論下冊.臺北:自刊.
14. 張心悌(2011)。短線交易百分之十大股東內部人身分之認定：最高法院九十九年台上字第一八三八號民事判決。月旦裁判時報，7，76-84。
15. 楊淑文(2016)。論連帶保證與連帶債務：最高法院88 年度台上字第1815號民事判決評釋。保證專題研究，臺北:
16. 劉連煜(2013)。大股東與配偶短線交易歸入權的法律問題：最高法院九十九年度台上字第一八三八號民事判決評析。月旦裁判時報，19，34-45。
17. 劉連煜(2005)。證券交易法第四三條之一第一項共同取得認定之研究：從釋字第五八六號解釋論起。月旦法學雜誌，126，158-171。
18. 賴英照(2008).股市遊戲規則：最新證券交易法解析.臺北:自刊.