中文摘要：

證交法第20條第1項是我國法針對證券詐欺之一般性規範，同條第3項則係違反該條文之民事責任，由於該等條文對於證券詐欺民事責任的若干要件並未有明文規範，也因此實務見解未有定見，使得後續如發生類似的案件較難以依循，本文選定違反第20條第1項民事責任之「責任主體」及「主觀要件」此二要件，觀察若干實務判決就此要件之見解，並從法學解釋方法的角度，觀察法院於解釋此二要件時，運用法學方法之情況。

判決分析之結果，就責任主體部分，實務見解運用文義解釋時，較難得知責任主體之範圍；運用體系解釋時，有相當數量判決認可參考證交法第32條之規範，亦有參考刑事責任規範，認違法之行為人亦係民事責任主體；運用歷史解釋時，多數實務認責任主體不限於發行人而包含交易相對人和第三人；運用比較解釋時則僅為參考並未為判決依據；運用目的解釋時，多數實務認責任主體不限於發行人或參與交易之人，另亦有法院考量維護交易秩序和保障投資人之目的，將第20條之1做為法理，將第20條之責任主體與其做相同認定。

而就主觀要件部分，運用文義解釋時，許多實務見解援引最高法院之刑事判決見解，認第20條規範均限於故意行為；體系解釋上，法院有觀察第32條之立法理由以及第171條第1項第1款之刑事責任，認第20條主觀要件均限於故意；歷史解釋上，法院有觀察第20條第3項及第20條之1的立法理由，認應依責任主體不同而有不同的主觀要件要求；比較解釋上，有法院參考外國法，認為證券詐欺民事責任之主觀要件應類似於未必故意；目的解釋上，多數實務傾向認主觀要件不限於故意，另亦有實務見解考量目的，認將第20條之1做為法理，而針對不同責任主體而有不同主觀要件之認定。

另本論文亦嘗試運用法學解釋方法，針對證交法第20條第1項民事責任之責任主體及主觀要件進行分析。

English Abstract：

The article 20 paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act is a general clause against securities fraud, paragraph 3 of the same article regulate the civil liability of paragraph 1. The court’s opinion may not be consistent due to some implicit elements of the article of the Civil Responsibility of Securities Fraud. It also difficult to abide in subsequent cases. The thesis selects the two elements of “Responsibility Subject” and “Subjective Elements” that violate the civil liability of the article 20 paragraph 1. To observe the judgments of the courts on the elements, and from the perspective of the Judicial Approach, observes the circumstances in which the court applied the Judicial Approach when interpreting the two elements.

From the result of analyzing judgments, it is difficult to know the scope of the Responsibility Subjects in the application of the Textual Approach; in applying the System Approach, there is a considerable number of courts deems that refer to Article 32, and also refer to the criminal responsibility norms, the feasor of the violation is also the responsibility subject of Civil Liability; in applying the Historical Approach, most of the courts deem the responsibility subject is not limited to the issuer but includes the privies and the third party; in applying the Comparative Approach, the result is merely as a reference not a basis of judgment; in applying the Purposive Approach, the majority of the judgments deem Responsibility Subjects are not limited to the issuer or the person involved in the transaction. There are also some courts that consider the purpose of safeguarding the order of transactions and protecting the investors, Article 20-1 shall be taken as Legal theory and to do the same finding on the Responsibility Subject of Article 20 and Article 20-1.

In the part of Subjective Elements of the thesis, when applying the Textual Approach, many court opinions invoke the opinion of the Supreme Court on criminal judgments. They deem that Article 20 are all confined to intentional acts; in applying the System Approach, the court has observed the legislative reasons for Article 32 and the criminal liability of Article 171 paragraph 1 subparagraph 1, the Subjective Requirements of Article 20 are confined to the intentional; in applying the Historical Approach, the court has observed the legislative reasons for Article 20 paragraph 3 and Article 20-1, and it would be different Subjective Elements that based on different Responsibility Subjects; in applying the Comparative Approach, there are courts that refer to foreign law and deem that the Subjective Elements of Civil Liability for Securities Fraud should be similar to the recklessness; in applying the Purposive Approach, the majority of the courts tend to deem that Subjective Elements are not confined to intentional, and there are also some court’s opinion to consider the purpose, and to deem that Article 20-1 as Legal Theory, and to deem that the different Subjective Elements is based on different Responsibility Subjects.

In addition, this thesis also tries to apply Judicial Approach to analyze the Responsibility Subjects and Subjective Elements of the Civil Liability of the Article 20 paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act.

資料來源：

台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統