本文關(guān)鍵詞：我國臺灣地區(qū)公司保證制度研究　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 公司保證行為 法律效力 法律責(zé)任

【摘要】：公司保證制度不僅是公司法學(xué)理論研究重要內(nèi)容，更是解決公司在實(shí)務(wù)遇到的保證難題的基本前提。公司為法人，不同于自然人，公司行為要遵循營利性原則，而公司保證行為并不是傳統(tǒng)意義上的營利行為，雖然可能為公司帶來潛在利益，但是直接的影響多數(shù)是不利的負(fù)擔(dān)�？墒乾F(xiàn)今工商業(yè)社會中廣泛存在著公司為保證人擔(dān)保他人債務(wù)履行的情形，主要在于公司為社會中之公司，不能脫離其他公司團(tuán)體而獨(dú)立存在，特別是在現(xiàn)在這樣一個(gè)融資較為困難，融資門檻高的時(shí)代，每個(gè)公司都有可能遇到需要其他公司擔(dān)保債務(wù)的情形，因此在實(shí)務(wù)中大多數(shù)公司都有為保證行為的需求。 在《中華人民共和國公司法》2005年修改之前，我們一直堅(jiān)持著法人權(quán)利能力限制的學(xué)說，不允許公司為保證行為，但隨著實(shí)務(wù)中需求的越來越急迫，立法者解除了公司為保證行為的限制。盡管原則上允許公司為保證行為，，但是因其不利可能性，公司法用了一個(gè)條文專門對公司為保證行為的程序進(jìn)行規(guī)范。如今，《中華人民共和國公司法》（2005年修訂）已經(jīng)實(shí)施近十年的時(shí)間，實(shí)踐中又出現(xiàn)了很多亟待解決的問題。 通過對比，作者發(fā)現(xiàn)我國臺灣地區(qū)在這個(gè)問題上早在1966年就已經(jīng)提出了解決的辦法，比我們早了近半個(gè)世紀(jì)�？v觀現(xiàn)在我國臺灣地區(qū)的工商業(yè)界在此問題上并沒有出現(xiàn)什么爭執(zhí)，其原因到底是制度的成熟還是長久的路徑依賴，是值得我們探討的。因此，本文通過對我國臺灣地區(qū)公司保證制度的介紹和研究，利用歷史研究方法、比較研究方法和實(shí)證研究方法，從公司保證的法律效力、責(zé)任承擔(dān)、公司法實(shí)施的實(shí)踐效果與現(xiàn)存問題幾個(gè)方面全面解讀我國臺灣地區(qū)公司保證制度。 我國臺灣地區(qū)依然堅(jiān)守著法人權(quán)利能力限制的原則，認(rèn)為禁止公司為保證行為為其法令上之限制，不允許公司為保證行為。但是鑒于實(shí)踐中需要，并未完全切斷公司為保證行為的可能性，在法條中保留了“其他法律有規(guī)定”和“公司章程規(guī)定得為保證”兩個(gè)例外。據(jù)此，公司在其他法律有規(guī)定和公司章程規(guī)定得為保證行為的情形下是可以對外保證的。公司法理學(xué)界將公司保證行為分為違法保證和逾權(quán)保證兩種情形。在公司違法保證時(shí)，也就是沒有上述兩種例外的情況下，公司為保證行為必然無效；在逾權(quán)保證時(shí)，即其他法律有規(guī)定或者公司章程規(guī)定得為保證的情況下，公司負(fù)責(zé)人超越權(quán)限為保證行為，此時(shí)要區(qū)分債權(quán)人善意與否，在債權(quán)人惡意情況下，公司保證行為依然對公司無效，只能由公司負(fù)責(zé)人承擔(dān)相應(yīng)責(zé)任；在債權(quán)人善意的情況下，公司的保證行為為對公司有效。在我國臺灣地區(qū)公司運(yùn)營實(shí)踐過程中，多數(shù)公司在自己的章程中規(guī)定公司得為保證行為，這使得公司對外保證成為日常經(jīng)濟(jì)生活中的常態(tài)，而公司不得為保證行為卻成為非常態(tài)。另外，各公司以自己的方式規(guī)定保證的程序和方式，沒有統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定（甚至有些公司對該行為根本沒有具體的規(guī)范）。這導(dǎo)致我國臺灣地區(qū)“公司法”第十六條形同虛設(shè)，在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中并沒有起到規(guī)范的作用。我們認(rèn)為我國臺灣地區(qū)在公司保證制度上，形式上堅(jiān)持了法人權(quán)利能力的限制學(xué)說，實(shí)質(zhì)上已經(jīng)突破了該種限制。只是多年來法令不曾變動，公司在為該行為時(shí)只在公司章程中明確允許。社會已經(jīng)形成了一種穩(wěn)定的格局，即我們常說的路徑依賴。 我國大陸地區(qū)突破了法人權(quán)利能力的限制，允許公司為保證行為，這種突破是正確且必要的。我們只需要在現(xiàn)有的法律框架內(nèi)完善公司保證行為的具體程序即可。因此應(yīng)借鑒我國臺灣地區(qū)“公司法”，在董事會有決議為保證時(shí)，保證對公司為有效，由公司承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任，然后向董事追償；在董事會沒有決議為保證行為時(shí)，保證對公司為無效，此時(shí)只能由公司負(fù)責(zé)人自負(fù)責(zé)任。 從保證目的出發(fā)，為更好的保護(hù)債權(quán)人的利益，應(yīng)增加公司負(fù)責(zé)人自身承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任的條款，在我國大陸地區(qū)《公司法》第十六條增加一款作為第四款：董事或者股東違反前款規(guī)定，應(yīng)自負(fù)保證責(zé)任，對公司造成損害的，應(yīng)負(fù)賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:The company to ensure the system is not only the important content of the theory of company law, is the basic premise to solve the problem that more companies in practice encountered. For corporate, different from the natural person, the company should follow the principle of profit behavior, and ensure the company profit behavior and not in the traditional sense, although it may bring potential benefits for the company. But a direct impact is the most unfavorable burden. But modern industrial and commercial society widely exists in the company as a guarantor of others debt situation, the company is mainly lies in the society, can not be separated from other groups and the independent existence, especially in such a financing more difficult, high threshold of financing era each company, are likely to encounter other companies need to guarantee debt situation, so in practice most companies have to ensure the needs of behavior.
In the "People's Republic of China company law >2005 years before the change, we have been insisting on a limited capacity for legal rights theory, does not allow the company to ensure the behavior, but with practice needs more and more urgent, lawmakers to lift the company to ensure behavior restrictions. Although the principle allows the company to ensure the behavior, but because of its unfavorable possibility the company used a special provisions on company specifications to ensure the behavior of the program. Today," People's Republic of China company law "(revised in 2005) has been implemented for nearly ten years, appeared in practice many problems to be solved.
By comparison, the author found that the Taiwan region of China on this issue early in 1966 has put forward solutions, earlier than us for half a century. Now China's Taiwan region industry on this issue is not what the dispute, the reason is the system of the mature or long path dependence. It is worth discussing. Therefore, the guarantee system introduction and Research on China's regional Corporation in Taiwan, using the historical research method, comparison method and empirical research method, legal effect from the company to ensure the accountability, several aspects of the implementation of the company law and the practice effect and the existing problems of China's regional Corporation in Taiwan to ensure a comprehensive interpretation system.
China's Taiwan region still adhere to the principle of legal rights restriction ability, that prohibited the company in order to ensure behavior to restrict its laws, do not allow the company to ensure behavior. But in view of the practice, did not completely cut off the company for the possibility of the behavior, the law retained the "other legal provisions" and "the articles of association of the company to ensure" two exceptions. Accordingly, the company has provisions and the provisions of the articles of association to ensure the circumstances of the act can be guaranteed in other foreign law. The company will ensure the company legal actions into illegal guarantee and the right to ensure that more than two kinds of situations. In the company of illegal guarantee, that is none of the above two kinds of exceptional circumstances, the company in order to ensure the behavior is invalid; in more than the right to ensure that other, there are provisions of laws or regulations for the articles of association of the company under the condition of ensuring that the company responsible person Beyond the authority to ensure the good behavior, to distinguish between the creditors or not, in the case of malicious creditor, company guarantee behavior is still on the company is invalid, only by the responsible person of the company to assume responsibility; creditors in case of good faith, to ensure the company's behavior is effective to the company. In the process of China's Taiwan regional Corporation operating in practice. Most companies have to ensure that the provisions of the company act in its own constitution, which allows the company to become foreign guarantee in daily life are normal, and the company shall not guarantee behavior has become a very state. In addition, the company in its own way regulations to ensure that the procedures and methods, there is no uniform provisions (even some companies have no specific the specification of the behavior). This leads to China's Taiwan region "company law" sixteenth non-existent, in real life, and did not play a regulatory role. We think China's Taiwan region in the guarantee system, adhere to the theory of limit form capacity of legal person rights, essentially has exceeded the limit. But for many years the act did not change in the company for this act only in the company. Zhang Chengzhong allowed the society has formed a stable pattern, that is our path often said that the dependence.
In mainland China, the breakthrough capacity of legal person rights, allowing the company to ensure the behavior, this breakthrough is correct and necessary. We only need to improve the guarantee behavior of specific procedures within the existing legal framework. We should learn from China's Taiwan region "company law", the board resolution for guarantee and the guarantee of the company effectively, by the company to bear the suretyship liability, and then to the board of directors in recovery; no resolution in order to guarantee the behavior, guarantee of invalid company, at this time only by the responsible person of the company liable.
From that purpose, in order to protect the creditors' interests better, should increase the company itself bear the responsibility to ensure that the terms in "Company Law > sixteenth in mainland China shall be added as the fourth paragraph: the board of directors or shareholders in violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, should take responsibility to ensure that cause damage to the company, shall be responsible for compensation responsibility.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蔡立東;周龍杰;;董事對公司的義務(wù)論要[J];長白論叢;1996年02期

2 蔡立東;;論股東派生訴訟中被告的范圍[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年01期

3 蔡立東;論企業(yè)法人經(jīng)營范圍與民事能力[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1993年05期

4 錢玉林;;尋找公司擔(dān)保的裁判規(guī)范[J];法學(xué);2013年03期

5 錢玉林;;公司法第16條的規(guī)范意義[J];法學(xué)研究;2011年06期

6 沈暉;;背離公司擔(dān)保決議規(guī)制的法效果——分析路徑的困境與出路[J];南京大學(xué)法律評論;2011年02期

7 曹士兵;;公司法修訂前后關(guān)于公司擔(dān)保規(guī)定的解讀[J];人民司法;2008年01期

8 徐子良;;公司對外擔(dān)保法律效力的司法認(rèn)定[J];人民司法;2009年14期

9 蔡立東,孫發(fā);重估“代表說”[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2000年06期

10 茅院生,李建偉;公司對外擔(dān)保行為的效力[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2004年01期

本文編號：1408396