本篇论文目录导航:
【题目】公司越权担保合同效力问题探析
【导言】
公司法中对外担保法律完善导言
【第一章】
公司对外担保之立法与审判实践
【第二章】
公司越权担保效力认定的依据
【第三章】
表见代表中担保权人“善意”的认定
【第四章】
公司对外担保合同效力认定与责任承担
【结语/参考文献】
公司越权对外担保效力研究结语与参考文献
摘 要
公司对外担保跨越民事和商事领域,涉及公司法、合同法、物权法和担保法,是理论和司法实践中长期争论不休的问题。虽然 2005 年《公司法》的修改平息了关于公司对外担保能力的争论,但却产生了更为复杂的法律适用问题。公司对外担保涉及公司内外部双重法律关系,公司法仅就公司内部决策程序做出规定,并未涉及越权担保的外部效力认定,由此引发了理论和司法实践中关于越权担保合同效力的争论。
公司对外担保合同效力的认定存在三个关键点。第一,《公司法》第 16 条仅规定公司对外担保的内部决策程序,未明确法定代表人违反该规定与外部相对人签订的担保合同的效力。因此,需要通过法律解释方法符合逻辑地援引一项有关合同效力认定的条款,共同构成完整的法律规范。第二,若适用《合同法》第 50 条,需要对相对人“善意”的认定标准进行解释和细化。原则上,法定代表人可以代表公司从事任何经营活动,公司内部对法定代表人代表权的限制不发生对外效力。但是,法律具有社会公示效果,《公司法》第 16 条对相对人“善意”的认定是否具有影响,值得研究。第三,《合同法》第 50 条存在法律漏洞,仅规定相对人善意时合同有效;未规定相对人恶意时合同效力的认定以及合同无效时的责任分配。对上述三个关键问题,理论界和司法实践都存在不同回答,由此导致公司对外担保合同效力问题争论不断、久议未决。
本文认为《公司法》第 16 条构成代表权的法定限制,应适用《合同法》第50 条关于表见代表的规定。在担保权人“善意”的认定标准上,应根据商事主体和一般民事主体身份特征的不同,而适用不同的标准。总体而言,商人作为从事商事营利活动的主体,熟悉商事法律的规定、公司的运作、公司章程和决议,应当承担比一般民事主体更为严格的审查义务。具体而言,在对公司章程真实性的审查以及对公司决议内容和形式的审查上,商事主体应承担较高的注意义务。若相对人没有善尽审查义务,则应类推适用无权代理规则认定担保合同效力待定。在公司拒绝追认的情况下,该担保合同对公司不发生法律效力,而应由法定代表人和担保权人按照各自过错承担缔约过失责任。
本文分为四个部分,第一部分阐述了公司法修订前后关于公司对外担保法律规制方式的转变,对不同时期的立法理念和立法目的进行了考察和梳理。在此基础上,对审判实践中合同效力认定的理由和无效合同的责任分配进行了实证研究。通过该部分关于立法和审判实践的介绍,越权担保合同效力分析的问题关键点逐渐明晰。
第二部分阐述了《公司法》第 16 条没有明确表明法定代表人违反该项规定的行为效力。在探寻越权担保外部法律效果的过程中,不同学者给出了不同的解释路径,由此形成了关于合同效力认定的不同学说。笔者认为应当以“公司代表权的法定限制”为连接点,以《合同法》第 50 条作为认定越权行为外部效果的依据。
第三部分阐述了判断越权担保合同的效力应以是否构成表见代表为依据。表见代表具有两个方面的构成要件:其一,具有代表的权利外观。具体来看,任何主体都应当知晓商事法律的规定,应当知晓《公司法》第 16 条对代表权的限制。因此,担保权人若能证明与其订立合同的一方属于法定代表人,并且法定代表人提供的公司决议或者类似文件与章程规定相符,即具有代表的权利外观。其二,相对人对代表权的信赖具有合理性(善意且无过失),其实质是对担保权人课以一定程度的注意义务。基于商事主体身份和认知上的特殊性,笔者认为在担保权人审查义务的认定标准上,应当进行民商区分。具体来看,商人作为一项特殊的职业群体,在自身公司的运营过程中必然知晓公司章程的制定和登记规则,知晓公司决议的形式和记载事项。因此,商人对公司章程和公司决议须承担较高的审查义务。笔者在第三、第四节中进一步对商事主体和非商事主体审查义务的内容以及公司章程“沉默”时担保权人的审查对象进行了详细阐述。
第四部分讨论了越权担保合同的效力以及合同无效后的责任承担问题。在担保权人不构成善意的情况下,应类推适用无权代理制度,认定越权担保合同效力待定。在无效担保合同的责任承担问题上,法院一般援引《担保法司法解释》第 7 条的规定,判决公司对债务人不能清偿部分承担不超过 1/2 的责任。笔者认为在法定代表人越权签订对外担保合同的情况下,公司既不承担自己责任,也不承担替代责任,应类推适用无权代理的规定,由担保权人与法定代表人根据各自的过错承担缔约过失责任。
[关键词] 公司对外担保;保证;表见代表;公司章程
Abstract
The issue of company's external guarantee refers to corporate law, contract law,property law and guarantee law. Although 2005 corporate law quell the controversyof company's external guarantee ability, it also causes the problem of law application.Company's guarantee refers to the internal relationship and the external relationship.Although there are regulations on issues such as decision-making organs andprocedures and the restrictions on external guarantee in the corporation law, it lackslegal consequence of ultra vires acts. Is the external surety contract effective when itis contrary to the article 16 of the Corporate Law? The law does not give a clearanswer. Because of this, different scholars hold different opinions and give differentexplanations. The attitudes of judicial practice are also different.
There are three key points to determine the validity of company's externalsurety contract. Firstly, the corporation law lacks legal consequence of ultra viresacts,we should cite an article to solve the problem. Secondly, if apply article 50 ofthe Contract Law, we need to explain the standard of “good faith”. The legalrepresentative of the company is the apparent authority. Apparent authority refers toa situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent had authorityto act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent didnot have actual authority. However, the law has social publicity effect. We need todetermine whether article 16 of the Corporate Law can affect the relative person ingood faith. Thirdly, there are loopholes in the article 50 of the Contract Law. It only provides that when the counterpart is in good faith, the contract is effective; but itnot specified the validity of contract when the counterpart is not in good faith.Because the theoretical circles and judicial practice give different answers to abovethree key problems, there are debates in the problem of the company's externalguarantee.
This paper argues that article 16 of the Corporate Law is a power limitation ofthe representation. We should apply the regulation of unauthorized agency. Theauthor thinks that to determine whether thecounterpartis in good faith, we shoulddistinguish the civil subject and the commercial subject. As a special occupationalgroup, the merchant should know the provisions of commercial law, the operation ofthe company, the articles of association and the internal decision. The merchantshould bear more stringent review obligation than the general civil subject.Specifically, in the review of the articles of association and the internal decision, themerchant should bear more stringent review obligation. When the counterpart doesnot compose the “good faith”, we should apply the regulation of unauthorizedagency to determine the validity of the contract. When the company refuse toratifying, the surety contract is invalid, the outsider and legal person should bearresponsibility according to the fault of both sides.
This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter introduces theregulation and legislative purpose of related articles in corporate law during 1993and 2005. On the base of this analysis, the author then summarizes the judicialattitude of the external security of the corporation. Because of this study, the keypoints of the problem gradually become clear.
The second part reveals that article 16 lacks legal consequence of ultra viresacts. To determine the validity of company's external surety contract, differentscholars give different explanations. Then gradually form four kinds of theories. Theauthor thinks that we should apply the regulation of unauthorized agency to fill theholes of article 16 in the bridge of “surpass the legal person's limitation of power”.
The third chapter reveals that whether external surety contract is valid or not isdetermined by whether the counterpart is in good faith. Representative in fact requires two aspects of elements. Firstly, the legal representative should right inappearance. Specifically, anybody should know the general rules and provisions ofcommercial law, should know that article 16 of the Corporate Law is a powerlimitation of the representation. So, the third party should prove that the contractparty is the legal representative and it has check the internal decision according tothe articles of association. Secondly, the law protect innocent third party. Theinnocent third party refers that the counterpart holds honest intentions or belief, andfulfill the duty of care. The author thinks that we should distinguish the civil subjectand the commercial subject to judge whether the counterpart is in good faith. As aspecial occupational group, the merchant should know the operation of the company,the articles of association and the internal decision in the operation of the company.The merchant should bear more stringent review obligation than the general civilsubject in the review of the articles of association and the internal decision Then theauthor discuss the duty of care and the subject of care duty when the association ofthe company does not make resolution.
The fourth chapter draws the conclusions about how to determine the validity ofthe contract and how to distribute liability when the surety contract is invalid. Whenthe counterpart does not compose the “good faith”, we should apply the regulation ofunauthorized agency to determine the validity of the contract. In the issue of how todistribute liability, the court always invoke item 7 of the Legal Interpretation in Lawof Warranty and sentence that the company should bear no more than 1/2responsibility when the debtor can't pay off debts. The author thinks that, when legalrepresentative exceeding the scope of power, the company should not undertakelegal person's liability. According to the theory of Unauthorized Agency, thecounterpart and the legal representative should bear the responsibility according totheir respective fault.
[Key words] Validity of company's external surety contract; Surety;Representative in fact;Articles of corporation
目录
导言
一、选题背景
二、研究意义
三、文献综述
四、研究方法
第一章公司对外担保之立法与审判实践
第一节公司对外担保规则的立法沿革
一、1993年《公司法》及相关规定的立法态度
二、2005年《公司法》及相关规定的立法改变
第二节公司对外担保合同效力认定的审判实践
一、关于公司对外担保合同之效力认定
二、关于对外担保合同无效之责任承担
第二章公司越权担保效力认定的依据
第一节越权担保适用《合同法》第 50条的规定
一、《公司法》第16条是对代表权的限制
二、《合同法》第50条是对越权代表行为效力的规定
第二节越权担保不适用关于效力评价的其他法律规定
一、不能以《合同法》第52条第5项的规定为视角认定越权担保合同效力
二、不能以公司章程是否具有对外效力为视角认定越权担保合同效力
三、不能以公司意思表示为视角认定越权担保合同效力
第三章表见代表中担保权人“善意”的认定
第一节“善意”认定与审查义务的关系
第二节“善意”认定的类型化研究
一、区分民商事担保的标准
二、区分民商事主体的必要性
三、商事主体“善意”的认定标准应当高于其他主体
四、对其他主体“善意”的认定标准应当低于商事主体
第三节担保权人审查义务的具体内容
一、公司章程
二、股东会或者董事会决议
第四节公司章程“沉默”时担保权人审查义务的认定
一、公司章程“沉默”时的对外担保决策机关
二、公司章程“沉默”时担保权人审查的对象
第四章公司对外担保合同效力认定与责任承担
第一节越权担保合同的效力认定
一、担保权人善意时合同效力的认定
二、担保权人恶意时合同效力的认定
第二节担保合同无效的责任承担
一、无权代理的分析思路
二、对司法实践观点的评析
结语
参考文献
后记