中国公司越权担保效力的裁判路径研究 - 基于106份裁判案例的实证分析 -
A study on the Legal Effect of the China Ultra Vires Guarantee of Corporation - Based on empirical analysis of 106 cases -
李海燕(연변대학교); 蒋兆琳(中国延边大学法学院)
15권 1호, 141~162쪽
초록
公司越权担保，是指公司（通常是法定代表人）违反《中华人民共和国公司法》（以下简称《公司法》）第16条1）的规定，超出公司章程规定的担保数额或未经相关决议机构批准而为他人或股东进行担保的行为。面对公司越权担保，首先要解决的就是其效力问题。但本文通过对106份司法实务裁判案例统计发现，其效力认定裁判路径存在分歧，大致可归纳为以下三种：法律规范属性路径、内部管理规范路径以及法定权限限制路径。根据统计显示，内部管理规范路径近两年已经基本被摒弃，裁判分歧主要集中在法律规范属性路径和法定权限限制路径二者之间。法律规范属性路径主要通过分析《公司法》第16条的规范属性来判断担保的效力，而其属性又存在效力性规范、管理性规范以及其他规范等几种争议。法定权限限制路径则以《公司法》第16条的法定限制为基础，援引原《中华人民共和国合同法》（以下简称原《合同法》）第50条2）关于表见代表的有关规定，基于相对人善意来判断担保效力。相较于法律规范属性路径，法定权限限制路径更具有合理性，也更符合现有法律法规的立法精神。 2019年11月8日，《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称《九民纪要》）出台，延续了法定权限限制路径的裁判方法；后2021年1月1日《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称《民法典》）《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（以下简称《民法典担保解释》）相继颁布实施，进一步对公司越权担保效力的认定作出规定，明确公司越权担保问题应依照《民法典》第61条3）和第504条4）的规定处理。至此，法定权限限制路径已经基本被立法所认可，其合理性毋庸置疑。但基于不同法律规定的表述差异以及裁判者主观认识的分歧，导致该路径下仍然存在一些问题亟需改善，如相对人审查义务的相关争议，违规担保的责任承担问题等。因此，为进一步完善公司越权担保效力的裁判规则，在现有法律对法定权限限制路径的认可之下，应抓住《公司法》修订契机，在适用越权代表规则判断担保效力时，规定善意相对人需对公司章程、公司决议内容等进行合理审慎的形式审查；否则越权担保对公司不产生效力，公司免于承担责任,交易相对人和公司法定代表人根据过错原则各自承担相应的责任。
Abstract
The Ultra Vires Guarantee of Corporation means that the company (usually the legal representative) has violated the Article 16 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Company Law)，Beyond the amount of guarantee the company's articles of association or without the approval of the relevant resolution authority and guarantee behavior for others or shareholders. The first thing that the Ultra Vires Guarantee of Corporation should solve is the legal effect, but through the statistics of 106 cases, we find there are differences in the adjudication path, which can be sum up as the following three kinds: the legal norms attribute path, the internal management norms path and the Limitation of legal authority path. According to analysis, the second path has been abandoned in the past two years, the dispute mainly focus on the other two paths. The former mainly by analyzing the normative attributes of Article 16 of the Company Law to judge the validity, it also has the dispute of effectiveness norm, management norm and other norms. The latter, on the basis of the legal limitations of the article 16 of the Company law, invokes the provisions of Article 50 of the former Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Former Contract Law) on the rules of the apparent representation. Compared with the two paths, the legal permission restriction path is more reasonable, but also more in line with the legislative spirit of current laws and regulations. On November 8, 2019, the Ninth National Court of Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference were issued, continuing the adjudication method of restricting the path of legal authority; later, the Civil Code and The Interpretation of guaranty in Civil Code been issued, Further provisions shall be made on the determination of the effectiveness of the guaranty beyond the company's authority. Clear unauthorized guarantee according to article 61 and article 501 of the civil code of the processing. The legal authority restriction path has been basically recognized by the legislation. However, based on the differences in expression and subjective understanding of different legal provisions, there are still some problems under the path that need to be improved urgently, such as disputes related to the review obligations of the other party, responsibility for guarantee in violation of regulations. Therefore, in order to further improve the adjudication rules of Legal Effect of the Ultra Vires Guarantee of Corporation, we should seize the opportunity of the revision of the Company Law, when applying the ultra vires representative rule to judge the effectiveness of guarantee, stipulate that the counterpart party shall conduct a reasonable and prudent examination of the articles of association and the contents of the resolutions of the company; Otherwise, an overstepped security would have no effect on the company . Otherwise, the overreach guarantee has no effect on the company and the company is exempt from liability. The counterparty and the legal representative shall bear the corresponding liability respectively according to the principle of fault.
- 발행기관:
- 동북아법연구소
- 분류:
- 비교법학