本研究由法律觀點出發，研析智慧資本的法律定性，並研析企業利用智慧資本取得融資的可能性。學說上對於智慧資本雖有不同定義，觀察構面亦不相同，但大略可分為關係資本、人力資本、流程資本與創新資本四類。過去以擔保貸款為核心的放款，亦需以「權利」的存在為前提。本文發現，智慧資本的成分中，除已轉換為智慧財產權的情況外，能化約為法律權利的構面並不多見。企業所享有的利益若能轉換為法律上的權利，可以受到整套法律規定的保障，在移轉上與權利界定上亦較為容易，反應在企業融資與交易上，可以有效降低企業的交易成本，使企業以較低的成本取得資金。而無法權利化的利益，有時係因過於抽象無法清楚界定，或僅賦予有限度的保障，取得融資較為困難。 無法權利化的利益，仍然會反應在企業的股票價值，是否可能以股權作為智慧資本的融資基礎，即有探究價值。本研究從股權的法律性質出發，發現股權在財產權上最主要的意義在於剩餘財產分配請求權與盈餘分配請求權，但請求權標的係以企業整體營利狀況為基礎，即便一企業智慧資本極有價值，若其他資本利用狀況不佳，整體狀況仍會被牽連。相反地，如果利益已經權利化（如智慧財產權），即便企業其他部門經營不善，若該權利本身仍有價值，可以作為獨立的擔保標的。這種特質也成為以股權架構進行智慧資本融資的限制。 除了傳統擔保融資的架構外，資產證券化成為最新的融資工具之一。資產證券化基本架構在於創始機構移轉標的資產給特殊目的機構，以隔離創始機構的破產風險，對無法權利化的智慧資本而言，能否脫離創始機構移轉給特殊目的機構就會發生困難。 對智慧財產權而言，與其他資本間高度的互補性，成為另一問題。許多智慧財產的價值不來自於技術面，而在於持有者本身的通路或市場地位，一旦移轉給特殊目的機構達到資產分割的效果，將同時隔離標的資產與其他互補性資源間的牽連，甚至可能形成道德風險。即便實務上資產證券化的服務機構多為創始機構，但創始機構若與標的資產具有過大的利益相關，亦可能面對法律上對資產分割是否符合真實買賣的爭議。但對於價值來源主要是來自於技術因素的智慧財產，上述問題應可獲得控制。

Intellectual capital has long been mentioned as important assets for enterprises. How to help those companies collect necessary funding by such capital has become a new challenge. While more and more researchers dedicated to the development of the valuation and the accounting principles of intellectual capital, the legal status of intellectual capital has seldom been carefully examined. If intellectual capital can be viewed as legal rights, the structure of secured loan can be facilitated. Besides if the elements of intellectual property can be viewed as legal rights, it will be easier to transfer and can receive much more profound protection from laws, which will substantially reduce the transaction cost. After the survey of this research, it is found that few elements of intellectual capital can be viewed as legal rights. Except intellectual property rights such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc., only a few constructs of intellectual capital can be symbolized as contractral relationship among relevant firms. Except secured loans, assets securitization has been a brand new financial vehicle for fund raising. This paper also tries to explore whether the intellectual capital can be put into the new framework. It is found that this new method is not suitable for the intellectual capital that cannot be viewed as rights. Even if some constructs of intellectual capital are legal rights, there are still a number of difficulties. Assets securitization first requires the transfer of assets to special purpose vehicle to reach bankruptcy remoteness from the originator. While the value of intellectual capital highly relies on the complimentary assets, the assets partition structure will force the separation of those assets, which may be inherently inconsistent with the basic philosophy of assets securitization. The author believes that only the intellectual property right whose values are mainly deprived from the technical superiority and less dependent on other complementary assets may be suitable for the application of assets securitization in the initial stage.