我國現行公司法，源自 1904 年 1 月清廷制定公布的公司律。清廷對於公司律的頒行，寄予厚望，期待藉此重振衰落的經濟。由於缺乏先例可援，公司律以英國公司法及日本商法為藍本。以移植外國法制解決本國問題，自此成為法制改革的傳統。 10 年前開始的公司治理改革，延襲此一傳統。政府為消除企業弊案，並提升公司經營效率，以美國法制為師，引進獨立董事及審計委員會，有意將實施百年的雙軌制導向單軌制。 公司律的制定和單軌制的引進，時空背景殊異，但移植的本質未變，移植的缺失亦有許多雷同之處，其中透露的訊息，尤其發人深省。 本文首先說明公司律制定的背景、主要內容及其施行成效，其次討論引進獨立董事及審計委員會的相關問題，最後從公司律的制定及單軌制的建置，探討移植外國法制應有的認識。本文認為，移植外國法制在實務上不可避免。但要成功的移植，必須知己知彼，既能瞭解本國問題之所在，又能準確掌握外國制度的精華，並且務實面對本國實施新制的條件，做適當的調整因應，才能讓移植的法制開花結果。

The existing Company Law owes its origin to the Kung-ssu-lü of 1904, the first Company Law ever enacted in Chinese history. The Kung-ssu-lü was promulgated as one of the major remedies for the serious economic and financial illness in the closing years of Ch’ing Dynasty. Without any precedent in the commercial law area, the drafters of the Kung-ssu-lü turned to Japanese Commercial Code and British Corporation Act for the new law’s blueprint. Borrowing foreign laws to address domestic problems has since become a tradition for legal reforms. The corporate governance reform that started about ten years ago saw the continuation of that tradition. The unitary board consisting of independent directors and functional committees was introduced to Taiwan. The government policy is to replace, step by step, the traditional century-old two-tier system with the American style unitary board. A careful examination of the two borrowings, i.e. the promulgation of Kung-ssu-lü and the introduction of unitary board, reveals some strikingly similar drawbacks, in spite of the sharp differences in the settings surrounding the transplantations. The light thus shed is stimulating and inspiring indeed. This paper attempts to discuss first the background, the major contents, and the implementation of the Kung-ssu-lü, and then the relevant issues on the introduction of independent directors, audit committee, and compensation committee, and concludes with the lessons from the two legal transplants. This paper argues that legal transplants are inevitable in legal developments. To be successful in achieving intended goals, however, the persons responsible for a legal transplant must be in command of the domestic issues and the foreign laws to be borrowed. Necessary adjustments on relevant laws and institutions must also be made to ensure effective enforcement of the new laws in the receptive legal system.