(3.235.11.178) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/26 03:42
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:阮仲甲
研究生(外文):Nguyen Trong Giap
論文名稱:公司治理機制對公司績效影響之實證研究-台灣上市櫃公司之實證分析
論文名稱(外文):The Relationship Between Corporation Governance Mechanisms And Firm''s Performance: Empirical Study of Listed companies in Taiwan
指導教授:歐陽豪歐陽豪引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:崑山科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:95
外文關鍵詞:Corporate governanceBoard of directorsOwnership structureFirm performance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:1004
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:229
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
The aim of this dissertation is to study about the influence of the differently composed board of directors and ownership structure dimensions on accounting and market performance in Taiwan. Thereby, the data of the over 1082 listed companies in Taiwan within the period from 2005 to 2008 are analyzed by the regression method.
For board of directors’ dimensions, results show that board of directors’ size, board independent directors’ size, board of supervisors’ size, outside block–holder and CEO belonging to controlled family all significantly positively affect on accounting performance. Meanwhile, chairman and CEO dual, chairman turnover, CEO turnover and chairman belonging to controlled family all significantly negatively affect on accounting performance. Market performance is significantly positively affected by CEO turnover but significantly negatively affected by chairman belonging to controlled family. Outside block–holder and dual CEO have no significant effect on market performance. On the other hand, board of directors’ size, board of independent directors’ size, board of supervisors’ size and CEO belonging to controlled family show mixing effects on market performance.
For ownership structure dimensions, institution shareholding, directors’ shareholding, managers’ shareholding, chairman shareholding, CEO shareholding, domestic financial shareholding and domestic trust institutions’ shareholding all significantly positively affect on accounting performance while supervisors’ shareholding and block-holders’ shareholding significantly negatively affect on it. Only foreign shareholding has mixing results affecting on accounting performance and government shareholding has no significant on accounting performance. Market performance is significantly positively affected by institution shareholding, managers’ shareholding, block-holders’ shareholding, chairman shareholding, CEO shareholding and domestic trust institutions shareholding while it is significantly negatively affected by supervisors’ shareholding and domestic financial shareholding. Foreign shareholding, government shareholding and directors’ shareholding have mixing results affecting on market performance.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivations 1
1.2 The Purpose and Scope of the Study 3
1.3 Structure of the Research 4
1.4 Research Process 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW, SET HYPOTHESES 7
2.1 Corporate governance 7
2.2 Firm performance 8
2.2.1 Accounting performance index 9
2.2.2 Market performance index 9
2.3 Board of Directors 10
2.3.1 Board size 10
2.3.2 Board Independence or outside directors 12
2.3.3 Board of supervisors size 13
2.3.4 Outside Block-holders 14
2.3.5 CEO and Chairman Duality 15
2.3.6 Whether Chairman is turnover or not 17
2.3.7 Whether CEO is turnover or not 17
2.3.8 Chairman belong to controlled family 18
2.3.9 CEO belong to controlled family 19
2.4 Ownership structure 21
2.4.1 Supervisors ownership 22
2.4.2 International ownership 22
2.4.3 Government ownership 24
2.4.4 Institutional ownership 25
2.4.5 Directors ownership 25
2.4.6 Managers ownership 26
2.4.7 Block-holder ownership 27
2.4.8 Chairman ownership 27
2.4.9 CEO ownership 28
2.4.10 Domestic financial institutions ownership 29
2.4.11 Domestic trust institutions ownership 30
CHAPTER 3: SAMPLE SOURCES, RESEARCH MODEL, AND METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Sample 32
3.3 Data sources 33
3.4 Variables 33
3.4.1 Independent variables 33
3.4.1.1 Board of directors components variables 33
3.4.1.2 Ownership structure variables 34
3.4.2 Dependent Variables - Performance Index 36
3.4.2.1 Dependent Variables -Accounting performance variables 36
3.4.3.2 Market performance variables 37
3.5 Analytic procedure 38
3.5.1 Regression models 38
3.5.1.1 Regression Model 1: Board of directors dimensions: 41
3.5.1.2 Regression Model 2: Ownership Structure dimensions 42
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 43
4.1 Descriptive statistics of variables 43
4.1.1 Descriptive statistics dependent variables 43
4.1.2 Descriptive statistics board of directors dimension variables 45
4.1.3 Descriptive statistics ownership structure dimension variables 47
4.2 Correlation coefficient 50
4.2.1 The correlation coefficient between performance indexes and 9 variables belong to Board of Directors composition. 50
4.2.2 The correlation coefficient between performance and 11 variables belong to Ownership Structure Dimension 53
4.3 Regression 55
4.3.1 Board of directors composition and firm performance 55
4.3.1.1 Discussion 61
4.3.2 Ownership structure composition and firm performance 68
4.3.2.1 Discussion 74
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 81
REFERENCES 88



1.Adams, R. B. and Mehran, H. 2008. Corporate Performance, Board Structure, and Their Determinants in the Banking Industry. s.l. : Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Federeal Reserve Bank of New York - Staff Reports, No. 330, 2008.
2.Adne Klungland and Kenneth Sunde. 2009. The effect of ownership structure on firm performance -a study of Norwegian listed firms. s.l. : Master Thesis in Financial Economics. Norwegian school of Economics and Business Administration, 2009.
3.Alan, G. and Steve, M. 2005. Foreign aquisitions by UK Limited companies Short and Long run performance. s.l. : Journal of Empirical Financial, No. 12, pp. 99-125, 2005.
4.Anderson, C. A. and Anthony, R. N. 1986. The new corporate directors: Insights for board members and executives (New York: Whiley). 1986.
5.Anderson, R. C. and Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. s.l. : Journal of Finance, No. 58, pp. 1301–1328, 2003.
6.Arthur,N. 2001. Board composition as the outcome of an internal bargaining process: Empirical evidence. s.l. : Journal of Corporate Finance, No. 7, pp. 307–340, 2001.
7.Barth, E. Gulbrandsen, T. and Schone, P. 2005. Family Ownership and Productivity: the Role of Owner-management. s.l. : Journal of Corporate Finance, No. 11, pp. 107–127, 2005.
8.Baysinger, B.D. and Butler, H.D. 1985. Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors : Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition. s.l. : Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, No. 1, pp. 101-124, 1985.
9.Belkhir, M. 2006. Board structure, Ownership structure, and Firm performance : Evidence from Banking. s.l. : Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans, University of Orléans - France, document de Recherche, No 2., 2006.
10.Belkhir, M. 2008. Board of Directors'' Size and Performance in the Banking Industry. s.l. : International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol.5, No. 9, 2008.
11.Berle, A. and Means, G. 1932. The Modern Corporation & Private Property. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. . s.l. : Reprinted 1991 by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, 1932.
12.Bhagat, S. and Black, B. 1999. The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Composition and Firm Performance. s.l. : Business Lawyer, Vol. 54 , pp. 921-963, 1999.

13.Bhagat, S. and Black, B. 2002. The Non-correlation between Board Independence and Long-term Performance. s.l. : Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 231-243, 2002.
14.Bohren, O. and Odegaard, B. A. 2001. Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in Norwegian Listed Firms. s.l. : The Norwegian School of Management Research Report 11/2001.
15.Bonn, I. Yoshikawa, T. and Phan, P. H. 2004. Effects of Board Structure on Firm Performance: A Comparison Between Japan and Australia. s.l. : Asian Business & Management, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 105–125., 2004.
16.Brennan, M.J. and Cao, H.H. 1997. International portfolio Investment flows. s.l. : Journal of Finance, No. 52, pp.1851-1880, 1997.
17.Brown, L. D. and Caylor, M. L. 2004. Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. Working Paper. s.l. : Retrieved September 25, 2008, from Social Science Research Network, 2004.
18.Burkart, M. Panunzi, F. and Shleifer, A. 2003. Family Firms. s.l. : Journal of Finance, No. 58, pp. 2167–2202, 2003.
19.Callahan, W.T. Millar J.A. and Schulman C. 2003. An Analysis of the Effect of Management Participation in Director Selection on the Long-Term Performance of the. s.l. : Journal of Corporate Finance: Contracting, Governance & Organization, No. 9 (2), pp. 169-181, 2003.
20.Chen S. and Dodd J. L. 1997. Economic value added: An empirical examination of a new corporate performance measure. s.l. : Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 9, N. 3, pp. 318-333, 1997.
21.Claessens, S.S. Djankov, J.F. and Lang, L. 2000. The Separation of Ownership and Control in East Asian Corporations. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58. pp. 81-112, 2000.
22.Dahya, J. McConnell, J.J. and Travlos, N. G. 2002. The Cadbury Committee Corporate Performance, and Top Management Turnover. s.l. : The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 461-483, 2002.
23.Davis, J. F. Schoorman, D. and Conaldson, L. 1997. Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. s.l. : Academy of Management Review, No. 22, pp. 20–47, 1997.
24.Dechow, P.M. Sloan, R.G. and Sweeney, A.P. 1996. Causes and consequences of Earnings manupulations: An analysis of firm subject to enforecement actions by SEC. s.l. : Conpemporary Accounting Research (Spring), pp. 87-103, 1996.

25.Demsetz, H. 1983. The Structure of Ownership and The Theory of the Firm. s.l. : Journal of Law and Economics, No. 26, pp. 375–394, 1983.
26.Dumitru, A. P. and Dumitru, C. E. 2008. EVA versus traditional accounting measure of performance as drivers of shareholder value – A comparative analysis. 2008.
27.Eisenberg, T. Sundgren, S. and Wells, T. M. 1998. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 35-54, 1998.
28.Eisenberg, T. Sundgren, S. and Wells, M.T. 1998. Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, No. 48, pp. 35-54, 1998.
29.Estrin, S. Hanousek, J. and Svejnar J. 2008. Effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. s.l. : Journal of Economic Literature , 2008.
30.Fama, E.F. 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. s.l. : Journal of Political Economy, No. 88, pp. 288-307, 1980.
31.Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M. 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control. s.l. : Journal of Law and Economics, No. 26, pp. 301-325, 1983.
32.Goethal, J. and Ooghe, H. 1997. The performance of Foreign and National Take-Overs in Belgium. s.l. : European Business review, No. 97, pp. 24-37, 1997.
33.Golden, B. and Zajac, E. 2001. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination × power = strategic change. s.l. : Strategic Management Journal, No. 22, pp. 1087–1111, 2001.
34.Gugler, K. 2001. Corporate Governance and Economic Performance. s.l. : Oxford University Press, 2001.
35.Handler, W. C. 1994. Succession in Family Business A Review of the Research. s.l. : Family Business Review, No. 7(2), pp. 133–157, 1994.
36.Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. s.l. : Journal of Accounting and Economics, No. 31, pp. 405-440., 2001.
37.Hermalin, B.E. and Weisbach, M.S. 1991. The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance. FinancialManagement 20(Winter): pp. 101-112 : s.n., 1991.
38.Hill, C.W. 2003. International Business – Competing in the Global Marketplace ,McGraw Hill. Chapter 7 – Foreign Direct Investments; the effects. 2003.
39.Hu, Fang. 2010. Top Management Turnover, Firm Performance and Government Control:Evidence from China’s Listed State-Owned Enterprises. s.l. : the 2009 American Accounting Association annual meeting and seminar participants at the Seoul National University, 2010.

40.Hu, Shu-hui Lin and Shing-yang. 2007. A Family Member or Professional Management? The Choice of a CEO and Its Impact on Performance. s.l. : Corporate Governance lournal, Vol. 15, no. 6, 2007.
41.Jensen, M. C. and Murphy, K. 1990. Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives. s.l. : Journal of Political Economy, No. 98(2), pp. 225 – 264., 1990.
42.Jensen, M.C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. s.l. : American Economic Review, No. 76, pp. 323-329, 1986.
43.Jensen, M.C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. s.l. : Journal of Finance, No. 48, pp. 831-880, 1993.
44.Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, pp. 305-360, 1976.
45.Jo-Ann Suchard, Manohar Singh and Robert Barr. 2001. The market effects of CEO turnover in Australian firms. 2001.
46.Jongsureyapart, Chatrudee. 2006. Factors that Determine Corporate Governance in Thailand. s.l. : A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy, School of Accounting and Finance Faculty of Busines and Law Victoria University, Melbourne, 2006.
47.Kaplan, S.N. and Minton, B. 1994. Appointments of Outsiders to Japanese Boards : Determinants and Implications for Managers,. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, No. 36, pp. 225-257, 1994.
48.Kennon, J. 2008. The Board of Directors - Fees, CEO Evaluation, and Ownership Structure. . s.l. : Retrieved September 29, 2008, from About.com, a part of The New York Times Company, 2008.
49.Kesner, I.F. 1987. Directors Stock Ownership and Organization Performance: An Investigation of Fortune 500 Company. s.l. : Journal of Management, No. 13, pp. 499-507, 1987.
50.Krivogorsky, V. 2006. Ownership, Board Structure, and Performance in Continental Europe. s.l. : The International Journal of Accounting, No. 41, pp. 176-197, 2006.
51.Kyereboah-Coleman, A. 2007. Corporate gorvernance and form performance in Africa: a dynamic panel data analysis. s.l. : University of Ghana Business School, Legon, 2007.
52.Kyereboah-Coleman, A. and Biekpe, N. 2005. The Relationshipbetween Board Size, Board Composition, CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Experience from Gahna. s.l. : Working Paper. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from ESSA - The Economic Society of South Africa, 2005.
53.La Porta, R. Lopez-De-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate Ownership Around the World. s.l. : The Journal of Finance, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 471-516, 1999.
54.Lawrence Fogelberg and John M. Griffith. 2000. Control and bank performance. . s.l. : Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions. Vol. 13, No. 3, 2000.
55.Lee, J. 2006. Family Firm Performance: Further Evidence. s.l. : Family Business Review, No. 19(2), pp. 103–114, 2006.
56.Leuz, C. and Verrecchia, R.E. 2000. The economic consequences of increased disclosure. s.l. : Journal of Accounting Research, No. 38, pp. 91-124, 2000.
57.Lubatkin, M. H. Ling, Y. and Schulze W. S. 2003. Explaining Agency Problems in Family Firms Using Behavioral Economics and Justice Theories. s.l. : Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, Seattle, WA, 2003.
58.Mak, Y. T. and Li, Y. 2001. Determinants of Corporate Ownership and Board Structure: Evidence from Singapore. s.l. : Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7, pp. 236-256, 2001.
59.McConnell, J. and Servaes, H. 1990. Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, No. 27, pp. 595-612, 1990.
60.Megginson, W. and Netter J. 2001. From state to market: a survey of empirical studies on privatization. s.l. : Journal of Economic Literature, No. 39, pp. 321-89., 2001.
61.Mehran, H. 1995. Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership, and Firm Performance,. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, No. 38, pp. 163-184, 1995.
62.Michael Firth, Peter M. Y. Fung and Oliver M. Rui. 2006. Firm performance, governance structure, and top manager turnover in traditional economy. s.l. : Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1289 1330, September 2006.
63.Morck, R. K. Strangeland, D. A. and Yeung, B. 2000. Inherited Wealth, Corporate Control, and Economic Growth. In Randall K. Morck (ed.) Concentrated Corporate Ownership. s.l. : Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
64.Morck, R. Shleifer A. and R. Vishny W. 1988. Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. s.l. : Journal of FinanceEconomics, No. 20(January/March): pp. 293-315, 1988.
65.Morris, M.H. Williams, R.O. Jeffery, A. and Avila, A.R. 1997. Correlates of Success in Family Business Transitions. s.l. : Journal of Business Venturing, No. 12, pp. 385–401, 1997.
66.Niou, Y.L. 2001. Correlation between Equity Structures, Board Compositions and Corporate Performances. s.l. : master’s thesis, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Central University, 2001.
67.OECD. 2004. ‘The OECD(Organization for Economic Co operation and Development) Principles of Corporate Governance’. s.l. : source: www.oecd.org/publications/Pol_brief, 2004.
68.Ou-Yang, Hou. 2008. An Empirical Analysis of the Effect Components of the Corporate Governance Index on Firm Value: Evidence from Taiwan’s Financial Industry. . s.l. : The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summer 2008.
69.Igor P. Yung F. and Jenifer C. L. 2005. Corporate Governance and Performance in Publicly Listed, Family-Controlled Firms: Evidence from Taiwan. s.l. : Asia Pacific Journal of Management, No. 22, pp. 257–283, 2005.
70.Pedersen, T. and Thomsen, S. 2000. Ownership Structure and Economic Performance in the Largest European Companies. s.l. : Strategic Management Journal, No. 21, pp. 689–705, 2000.
71.Pedersen, T. and Thomsen, S. 1997. European Patterns of Corporate Ownership. . s.l. : Journal of International Business Studies, No. 28, 1997.
72.Pedersen, T. and Thomsen S. 2003. Ownership structure and the value of the largest European firms: The importance of owner identity. s.l. : Journal of Management and Governance, No. 7, pp. 27-55, 2003.
73.Peggy Radlach, Katja Schlemmbach. 2008. Board of directors and its influence on risk propensity and firm performance. s.l. : Kristianstad University College, 2008.
74.Pi, L. and Timme S.G. 1993. Corporate Control and Bank Efficiency. s.l. : Journal of Banking and Finance 20, No. 2,3, pp. 515-530, 1993.
75.Prowse, S.D. 1998. ‘Problems of External Finance and Corporate governance’ Corporate Governance: Emerging Issues and Lessons from East Asia. s.l. : The World Bank Group, pp 1-32, 1998.
76.Ramaswamy, K. and Li, M. 2002. Foreign investors, foreign directors and corporate diversification: An empirical examination of large manufacturing companies in India. s.l. : Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 207-222, 2002.
77.Rechner, P.L. and Dalton, D.R. 1991. CEO Duality and Organizational Performance : a Longitudinal Study. s.l. : Strategic Management Journal, No. 12, pp. 155-160, 1991.
78.Schulze, W. S. Lubatkin, M. H. Dino, R. N. and Buchholtz, A. K. 2001. Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence. s.l. : Organization Science, No. 12, pp. 99–116, 2001.
79.Sharma, P. Chrisman, J. J. Pablo, A. and Chua, J. H. 2001. Determinants of Initial Satisfaction with the Succession Process in Family Firms: A Conceptual Model. s.l. : Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, No. 25, pp. 1–19, 2001.
80.Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. 1986. Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. s.l. : Journal of Political Economy, No. 94, pp. 461–488, 1986.
81.Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. 1997. A Survey of Corporate Governance. s.l. : Journal of Finance, No. 52, pp. 737–783, 1997.
82.Short, H. 1994. Ownership, Control, Financial Structure and the Performance of Firms. s.l. : Journal of Economic Surveys, pp. 203-249, 1994.
83.Shoue-Yu Huang and Yu-Cheng Hsiao. 2009. Empirical Analysis of Information Disclosure Transparency — Listed Electronics Companies in Taiwan as an Example . s.l. : The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, August 2009.
84.Smith, B. F. and Amoako-Adu, B. Management Succession and Financial Performance ofFamily Controlled Firms. s.l. : Journal of Corporate Finance, No. 5, pp. 341–368.
85.Solomon, J. and Solomon, A. 2004. Corporate governance and accountability. s.l. : John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England, 2004.
86.Stoeberl, P. A. and Sherony, B. C. Board efficiency and effectiveness. s.l. : (In E. Mattar & M. Balls (Eds.), Handbook for corporate directors (pp. 1201-1210). New York: McGraw-Hill).
87.Sytse douma, Rejie George, Rezaul kabir. 2002. Foreign and domestic ownership , business group and firm performance : evident from a large emerging market. 2002.
88.Takao Kato and Cheryl Long. 2006. CEO Turnover, Firm Performance and Enterprise Reform in China: Evidence from New Micro Data. s.l. : Discussion Paper No. 1914, 2006.
89.Villalonga B. and Amit R. 2004. How Do Family Ownership, Control, and Management Affect Firm Value? s.l. : Harvard Business School, working paper, 2004.
90.Xiaonian Xu and Yan Wang. 1997. Ownership structure, corporate governance and firm performance and: The Case of Chinese Stock Companies. s.l. : Amherst College and The World Bank, 1997.
91.Xiong Xiao-zhou; Wang Ren-ping; Li Jin. 2008. Outside blockholders and corporate performance: Evidence from China IPO firms. s.l. : Management Science and Engineering, 2008. ICMSE 2008. 15th Annual Conference Proceedings. International Conference on Vol. 10 , Issue12 , pp. 603 – 608, 2008.
92.Yermack, D. 1996. Higher market valuation of companies with small boards of directors. s.l. : Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 185-211, 1996.
93.Young, Chaur-Shiuh. 2008. Voluntary Appointment of Independent Directors in Taiwan: Motives and Consequences. s.l. : Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 35, Issue 9-10, pp. 1103 - 1137, 2008.
94.Zeckhauser, R. and Pound, J. 1990. Are large shareholders effective monitors? An investigation of share ownership and corporate performance, In R. G. Hubbard (ed.). Asymmetric Information, Corporate Finance and investment. s.l. : The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, pp. 149–180, 1990.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔