我國法界於有關股份有限公司發起人之意義、地位、權限及責任等問題上，向來有形式說與實質說二種對立見解的存在。學說之通說傾向於形式說看法，實務判決則趨近於實質說之主張。本文基本上贊同形式說見解，並藉由最近有關發起人責任之最高法院判決，論述實務運作於此所呈現之理論及論理上的問題點，闡述形式說見解之採行，不僅不必然會導致實質說論者所擔心的交易相對人保護弱化情形之發生，且可兼顧交易相對大保障與成立後公司資本維護二者規範目的之平衡，合理分工設立中公司與發起人合夥的權限，令二者組織各自擔負其應盡義務與責任，貫徹公司法藉由鼓勵公司設立，促進整體經濟繁榮之立法意旨。

There exist deep conflicts with regard to meaning, status, power and liability of promoters of a corporation in Taiwan's legal circle On one hand the academics are inclined to adopt a formal standpoint On the other hand, decisions of courts insist on a substantive point of view 1 his Article takes sides with formal view By reviewing an important judgment recently handed down by Supreme Court some theoretical and logical problems of substantive view are exposed The Article, then, goes on to claim that adoption of the formal view does not necessarily weaken the protection of those parties who enter into pre incorporation contracts with promoters, as substantive view defenders think it will The Article concludes that adoption of the formal view will realize capital maintenance as well as transaction's security, both of which are important arms Taiwan's Company Law tries to achieve.