本文選題：公司法 + 公司法人格否認(rèn)�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 近年來(lái)，人格否認(rèn)制度一直是公司法領(lǐng)域內(nèi)爭(zhēng)議和討論的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。學(xué)者們圍繞著人格否認(rèn)制度見(jiàn)仁見(jiàn)智，各抒己見(jiàn)，發(fā)表相關(guān)論文和著作無(wú)數(shù)；盡管觀(guān)點(diǎn)和論證各不相同，但可以看出：絕大部分學(xué)者在關(guān)于是否應(yīng)該在我國(guó)公司法上確立人格否認(rèn)制度這個(gè)問(wèn)題上的意見(jiàn)上是一致的。2005年10月27日通過(guò)并于2006年1月正式施行的公司法修訂案第20條第3款第一次在我國(guó)公司法上對(duì)人格否認(rèn)制度做出了明確的規(guī)定。這條規(guī)定盡管較為原則，但對(duì)規(guī)制我國(guó)目前出現(xiàn)的股東濫用公司法人人格損害債權(quán)人利益的普遍現(xiàn)象仍有著積極意義。 公司法人人格不僅僅被自然人股東所濫用，在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)中往往更多的是被法人股東(即母公司)所濫用。因?yàn)榘殡S著經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的劇烈變化，利用母子公司關(guān)系實(shí)行商業(yè)控制的有效手段，形成企業(yè)的集團(tuán)經(jīng)營(yíng)已成為大型企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)戰(zhàn)略的重要組成部分。母子公司分別為獨(dú)立的法人，獨(dú)自經(jīng)營(yíng)、各負(fù)盈虧；但母公司是子公司的控制股東，實(shí)際控制著子公司。尤其是在全資子公司中，母公司作為惟一股東更是牢牢控制著子公司的一切。母子公司這種特征就決定了母公司極易濫用子公司的法人人格，從事高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)或高利益的經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)，卻以有限責(zé)任原則逃避法律責(zé)任，從而損害子公司債權(quán)人利益。 本文從日本豐田訴重慶力帆商標(biāo)侵權(quán)一案著手，分析在母子公司場(chǎng)合下，當(dāng)母公司利用獨(dú)立法人人格來(lái)逃避子公司債務(wù)時(shí)，子公司的債權(quán)人可以直接請(qǐng)求母公司承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。在我國(guó)企業(yè)集團(tuán)中，控制母公司往往通過(guò)設(shè)立眾多子公司及關(guān)聯(lián)公司來(lái)達(dá)到規(guī)模經(jīng)營(yíng)的效益，但卻以有限責(zé)任制度為擋箭牌，逃避相應(yīng)的法律責(zé)任。這種做法使控制母公司享受了最大的利益卻承擔(dān)最小的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而最終受害的是廣大債權(quán)人的利益和社會(huì)公共利益。顯然，這違背了法的公平正義原理，也背離了公司法人制度和有限責(zé)任制度設(shè)計(jì)者們的初衷。母公司作為法人股東有不同于自然人股東的特征，同時(shí)在母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度還存在其他一些特殊情形；本文正是從母子公司自身的特征出發(fā)，重點(diǎn)分析人格否認(rèn)制度在其中適用的特殊性和應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題，最后結(jié)合我國(guó)的立法現(xiàn)狀和司法實(shí)踐進(jìn)行分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)總結(jié)存在的問(wèn)題并提出相關(guān)建議。 本文在文章的開(kāi)頭提出問(wèn)題后，首先對(duì)母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度的一般原理進(jìn)行了分析闡釋。在這部分里主要論述了母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度的原因、法定要件、主要情形、本質(zhì)和結(jié)果以及在全資子公司和非全資子公司中的區(qū)別適用。同人格否認(rèn)制度的一般原理一樣，在母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度主要原因也是為了維護(hù)公平正義和誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則，具體來(lái)說(shuō)是為了保護(hù)債權(quán)人利益和社會(huì)公共利益。適用的法定要件有：子公司合法成立、主體適格、存在母公司濫用公司法人格的行為并且這種行為與子公司債權(quán)人的損失之間有因果聯(lián)系、債權(quán)人的損失無(wú)其他救濟(jì)途徑；也即在母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度必須嚴(yán)格慎重，因?yàn)樵撝贫戎皇怯邢挢?zé)任制度的有益補(bǔ)充，而非代替。在母子公司中濫用法人人格的行為主要?dú)w納為以下情形：公司資本顯著不足、利用公司法人人格規(guī)避法律義務(wù)、利用公司法人人格回避合同義務(wù)、公司法人人格形骸化，但不限于這幾類(lèi)。適用的結(jié)果是令濫用了控制權(quán)的母公司對(duì)其侵權(quán)責(zé)任承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。 文章的第三部分主要分析在母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度的特殊性問(wèn)題，主要表現(xiàn)在以下四個(gè)方面：首先，母子公司中存在反向“揭開(kāi)公司面紗”情形，這種情形主要出現(xiàn)在母子公司人格混同情形下；其次，母子公司中存在兩次甚至多次適用人格否認(rèn)制度的情形。因?yàn)槟腹镜墓蓶|受有限責(zé)任保護(hù)，母公司本身也對(duì)子公司承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任，如果子公司再設(shè)孫公司，如此等等，即有可能多次揭開(kāi)公司面紗，，讓母公司股東承擔(dān)最終責(zé)任；再次，母子公司中存在董事經(jīng)理“一仆二主”的現(xiàn)象，因?yàn)槎陆?jīng)理們往往同時(shí)在母子公司中任職，但卻職權(quán)不分，所以當(dāng)其濫用控制權(quán)造成子公司債權(quán)人損失時(shí)應(yīng)該承擔(dān)民事賠償責(zé)任。但是這種責(zé)任需要法律有明確規(guī)定，而不能對(duì)其適用人格否認(rèn)制度。最后，在稅法、破產(chǎn)法、環(huán)境法、勞動(dòng)法以及會(huì)計(jì)審計(jì)法、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法領(lǐng)域里，母子公司中容易出現(xiàn)濫用法人人格現(xiàn)象，因此在這些領(lǐng)域中也應(yīng)該適用人格否認(rèn)制度。 文章第四部分主要分析了兩種特殊類(lèi)型的母子公司中是否適用人格否認(rèn)制度的問(wèn)題。在國(guó)有控股的母子公司中，應(yīng)區(qū)別適用。純公益性壟斷性的國(guó)有企業(yè)應(yīng)該單獨(dú)立法，不適用公司法中的人格否認(rèn)制度；而競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的國(guó)有控股母子公司中應(yīng)該適用人格否認(rèn)制度，不應(yīng)例外。在跨國(guó)母子公司中母公司對(duì)子公司的控制是合法的，而且其出現(xiàn)本身就是因?yàn)榭刂频拇嬖�；因此跨�?guó)公司更易出現(xiàn)母公司濫用控制權(quán)現(xiàn)象，從而損害東道國(guó)債權(quán)人的利益。在吸引外資和維護(hù)公平正義之間東道國(guó)往往要進(jìn)行利益平衡，但是否能適用人格否認(rèn)制度還涉及到國(guó)家司法主權(quán)和國(guó)家利益的問(wèn)題，非常復(fù)雜。解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題需要國(guó)家間的協(xié)商合作，我國(guó)目前仍無(wú)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定。 最后，結(jié)合我國(guó)的立法現(xiàn)狀和司法實(shí)踐進(jìn)行分析評(píng)價(jià)，總結(jié)了立法中仍存在的問(wèn)題，主要是人格否認(rèn)制度的模糊性和不可操作性以及我國(guó)母子公司法律規(guī)定的缺失問(wèn)題。因此作者建議出臺(tái)相關(guān)的司法解釋和制定修改配套法律法規(guī)，加強(qiáng)人格否認(rèn)制度的可操作性和完整性。同時(shí)，針對(duì)該制度本身的缺陷和立法中不完善的地方，作者對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題提出了建議。 總之，本文的寫(xiě)作目的就是通過(guò)對(duì)母子公司中適用人格否認(rèn)制度的特性進(jìn)行分析總結(jié)，希望人格否認(rèn)制度在母子公司中的運(yùn)用能在司法實(shí)踐中引起重視并發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的制度功能，從而真正能保護(hù)債權(quán)人利益、維護(hù)社會(huì)公平和正義。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the system of personality denial has been a hot issue in the field of corporate law. Scholars have different opinions about the system of personality denial and express their own opinions and publish numerous related papers and books. Although the views and arguments are different, it can be seen that the overwhelming majority of the scholars should make sure that the company law should be true in our country. The opinion on the issue of the system of standing personality denial is a consensus on the twentieth article of the amendment to the company law, which was formally implemented in October 27th in.2005 and formally implemented in January 2006. The first time in the third paragraph of the company law of China has made a clear regulation on the system of personality denial in our country's company law. The general phenomenon of damaging the interests of creditors with corporate personality is still of positive significance.
The corporate personality is not only abused by the shareholders of the natural person, but often misused by the legal person shareholders (the parent company) in the modern society. Because of the violent changes in the economy and society, the effective means of commercial control are carried out by the relationship between the parent and subsidiary company, and the formation of the enterprise group management has become the heavy business strategy of the large enterprise. The parent company is the independent legal person, and the parent company is the sole shareholder, but the parent company is the controlling shareholder of the subsidiary. The parent company, especially in the wholly owned subsidiary, is the only shareholder which controls all the subsidiary more firmly. The parent company determines the parent company is very indiscriminate. The corporate personality of a subsidiary is engaged in high risk or high interest operating activities, but it evade the legal responsibility by the principle of limited liability, thereby damaging the interests of the creditor of the subsidiary.
This article begins with the case of TOYOTA v. Chongqing Li Fan trademark infringement case, and analyzes that when the parent company uses an independent corporate personality to escape the debt of the subsidiary company, the creditor of the subsidiary can directly request the parent company to undertake joint and several liability when the parent company uses the independent corporate personality. In order to achieve the benefit of scale management, the affiliated company avoids the corresponding legal responsibility with the limited liability system as the shield. This practice makes the control of the largest benefit of the parent company and takes the minimum risk, and the ultimate damage is the interests of the broad creditors and the social public interests. Obviously, it violates the fairness and justice of the law. It also deviates from the original intention of the company legal person system and the designer of the limited liability system. The parent company is different from the natural shareholder as a legal person shareholder, and there are some other special situations in the system of personality denial in the parent subsidiary company. The particularity of the system and the problems that should be paid attention to, and finally the analysis of the current legislative and judicial practice in China, find out the existing problems and put forward some relevant suggestions.
After putting forward the questions at the beginning of the article, this paper first analyzes the general principle of the system of personality denial applicable to parent subsidiary companies. In this part, the reasons for the application of the system of personality denial in the parent and subsidiary company, the legal requirements, the main circumstances, the essence and the results, and the areas in the wholly owned and non wholly funded subsidiaries are discussed. The main reason for the application of personality denial system in parent subsidiary companies is to maintain the principle of fair justice and honesty and credibility, and specifically to protect the interests of creditors and social and public interests. The applicable statutory requirements are: the legal establishment of the subsidiary, the main body and the existence of the parent. There is a causal link between the misuse of the company law personality and the loss of the subsidiary's creditor, and there is no other remedy for the loss of the creditor; that is to say, the application of the system of personality denial in the parent subsidiary company must be strictly prudent, because the system is only a beneficial supplement to the limited liability system, but not a substitute. The behavior of the abuse of legal personality is mainly summed up in the following cases: a significant shortage of corporate capital, the use of corporate personality to evade legal obligations, the use of corporate personality to avoid contractual obligations, and the corporal personality of the company, but not limited to these categories. The result is that the parent company abusing the right of control is linked to its tort liability. Responsibility.
The third part of the article mainly analyzes the particularity of the application of personality denial system in parent subsidiary companies, which are mainly shown in the following four aspects: first, there is a reverse "unveiling the company veil" in the parent subsidiary company, which mainly occurs under the mixed personality of the parent and child company; secondly, there are two even in the parent subsidiary company. Because the parent company's shareholders are protected by the limited liability, the parent company itself is also responsible for the subsidiary. If the subsidiary is to set up sun company again, and so on, it is possible to expose the company's veil to the shareholders of the parent company on many occasions; and again, there is a director manager in the parent company. " The phenomenon of "one servant and two masters" is that the directors often serve in the parent subsidiary company at the same time, but their powers are not divided, so when they abuse the right of control to cause the loss of the creditor of the subsidiary, they should bear the civil liability. But this responsibility needs the law to have a clear regulation, but can not apply the system of denial of personality. Finally, in the tax law, it is broken. In the field of law of production, environment, labor, accounting and auditing, in the field of competition law, parent subsidiary companies are prone to abuse of legal personality. Therefore, personality denial system should also be applied in these fields.
The fourth part of the article mainly analyzes the problem of the application of the personality denial system in the two special types of parent subsidiary companies. In the state controlled parent and subsidiary companies, it should be applied differently. The pure public welfare monopolistic state-owned enterprises should have separate legislation and do not apply the system of personality denial in the company law; and the competitive state-owned holding parent and subsidiary companies are not applicable. It should be applied to the system of personality denial, which should not be excepted. The control of the parent company of the parent company in the multinational parent company is legal, and its appearance itself is because of the existence of control; therefore, the multinational company is more likely to appear the abuse of control in the parent company, thereby damaging the interests of the creditor of the host country. The host country often has a balance of interests, but whether it can apply the system of personality denial is also involved in the state's judicial sovereignty and national interests. It is very complicated to solve this problem. It needs consultation and cooperation between the States. There are still no relevant legal provisions in our country at present.
Finally, according to the analysis and evaluation of the legislative and judicial practice of our country, the problems still exist in the legislation are summarized, mainly the fuzziness and unmaneuverability of the system of personality denial and the lack of the legal provisions of the parent subsidiary companies in our country. At the same time, in view of the defects of the system and the imperfect legislation, the author puts forward some suggestions on the problems that should be paid attention to in the judicial practice.
In a word, the purpose of this article is to analyze and summarize the characteristics of the system of denial of personality in the parent subsidiary company. It is hoped that the application of the system of personality denial in the parent subsidiary company can arouse the attention of the judicial practice and give full play to its due institutional function, so as to protect the interests of the creditor and maintain the social fairness and justice.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D912.29

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮建斌;;股東有限責(zé)任排除適用與公司法人格否認(rèn)辨析[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

2 黃慶一;我國(guó)公司法人格否認(rèn)制度的司法實(shí)踐及立法展望[J];滁州師專(zhuān)學(xué)報(bào);2004年02期

3 劉建功;;《公司法》第20條的適用空間[J];法律適用;2008年Z1期

4 萬(wàn)洋;;公司法人格否認(rèn):清源與正名[J];中共青島市委黨校(青島行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2008年05期

5 張曉華,戴蕙;淺析公司法人格否認(rèn)[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

6 許京來(lái);;公司法人格否認(rèn)與一人公司規(guī)制[J];山西省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

7 孫婧媛;;淺議公司法人人格否認(rèn)制度[J];科學(xué)大眾;2008年04期

8 萬(wàn)洋;張蕾;;新《公司法》“揭開(kāi)公司面紗”制度疑點(diǎn)再析——兼論英美法的宏大風(fēng)格[J];福建商業(yè)高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

9 唐音;;淺談公司法人格否認(rèn)[J];佳木斯大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

10 楊頎;;關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)運(yùn)行法律規(guī)制及其完善構(gòu)想[J];科教文匯(下旬刊);2007年09期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前9條

1 孔德平;;以整體優(yōu)勢(shì) 激發(fā)局部活力——淺談母子公司關(guān)系[A];全國(guó)煤炭企業(yè)改革與管理優(yōu)秀論文和調(diào)研報(bào)告[C];2002年

2 余步雷;周宗放;;改進(jìn)的灰關(guān)聯(lián)度在度量企業(yè)集團(tuán)母子公司關(guān)系中的應(yīng)用[A];“中國(guó)視角的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析和危機(jī)反應(yīng)”——中國(guó)災(zāi)害防御協(xié)會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)第四屆年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

3 龍建明;錢(qián)向東;;母子公司組織結(jié)構(gòu)的構(gòu)建[A];煤炭經(jīng)濟(jì)管理新論（第7輯）——第八屆中國(guó)煤炭經(jīng)濟(jì)管理論壇暨第二屆中國(guó)煤炭學(xué)會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)管理專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)工作會(huì)議（2007）論文集[C];2007年

4 雷興虎;劉斌;;強(qiáng)化公司社會(huì)責(zé)任與公司法人格否認(rèn)制度的完善[A];北京論壇（2007）文明的和諧與共同繁榮——人類(lèi)文明的多元發(fā)展模式：“全球化趨勢(shì)中跨國(guó)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略與企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任”法學(xué)分論壇論文或摘要集（下）[C];2007年

5 王愛(ài)群;王洪玖;;企業(yè)集團(tuán)財(cái)務(wù)集中管理研究——以中國(guó)移動(dòng)為例[A];中國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)會(huì)高等工科院校分會(huì)2008年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)（第十五屆年會(huì)）暨中央在鄂集團(tuán)企業(yè)財(cái)務(wù)管理研討會(huì)論文集（上冊(cè)）[C];2008年

6 葉正茂;毛照東;;論企業(yè)集團(tuán)的股份制改造[A];全國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)管理院校工業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)研究會(huì)第六屆學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];1997年

7 陳行時(shí);;對(duì)地勘產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)、隊(duì)伍結(jié)構(gòu)綜合調(diào)整的思路和建議[A];資源·環(huán)境·循環(huán)經(jīng)濟(jì)——中國(guó)地質(zhì)礦產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)會(huì)2005年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2005年

8 代吉林;朱仁宏;傅慧;;政府主導(dǎo)型國(guó)企集團(tuán)公司戰(zhàn)略成長(zhǎng)價(jià)值模式研究——基于嶺南集團(tuán)案例的分析[A];第六屆（2011）中國(guó)管理學(xué)年會(huì)——組織與戰(zhàn)略分會(huì)場(chǎng)論文集[C];2011年

9 ;交流經(jīng)驗(yàn) 共謀發(fā)展 華北五省市區(qū)物資集團(tuán)董事長(zhǎng)、總經(jīng)理會(huì)議在北戴河召開(kāi)[A];中國(guó)物流與采購(gòu)聯(lián)合會(huì)會(huì)員通訊總第14期-32期（2002年1月-2003年1月）[C];2002年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉思萱;“公司法人格否認(rèn)”在一人公司規(guī)制中的運(yùn)用[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

2 劉建武;對(duì)組建地方金融控股公司的思考[N];陜西日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

3 羅彪;企業(yè)集團(tuán)業(yè)績(jī)管理模式選擇[N];首都建設(shè)報(bào);2007年

4 程玉中 山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)研究生學(xué)院研究生;淺析我國(guó)公司法人人格否認(rèn)制度[N];山西政協(xié)報(bào);2010年

5 本報(bào)記者　劉欣然;國(guó)資委忐忑中石化“股改”：日程尚未敲定[N];21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào)道;2005年

6 許婷;國(guó)資委：央企數(shù)量四年內(nèi)將減半[N];通信產(chǎn)業(yè)報(bào);2006年

7 顧先貴;十七冶改制呈現(xiàn)三大變化[N];中國(guó)冶金報(bào);2003年

8 王暉;建立公司法人格否認(rèn)制度的必要性[N];市場(chǎng)報(bào);2004年

9 記者　劉亮明;長(zhǎng)影走出困境重現(xiàn)活力[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

10 王銀華;“上藥”四十四億資產(chǎn)“打包”出售[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2003年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 許強(qiáng);基于知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移的母子公司關(guān)系管理研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2003年

2 李一楠;母子公司知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移研究[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

3 汪建康;基于子公司主導(dǎo)行為的企業(yè)集團(tuán)母子公司治理研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2007年

4 劉丹丹;控股股東占資行為的經(jīng)濟(jì)危害及解決途徑初探[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2006年

5 郭全中;集團(tuán)公司治理與管理體制研究[D];中國(guó)人民大學(xué);2004年

6 馬軍;關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)治理中的責(zé)任機(jī)制研究[D];天津大學(xué);2006年

7 張慧;關(guān)系嵌入對(duì)跨國(guó)子公司創(chuàng)業(yè)導(dǎo)向的影響機(jī)制研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2007年

8 侯仕軍;海外子公司定位、協(xié)調(diào)與控制研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2005年

9 沈樂(lè)平;規(guī)范企業(yè)集團(tuán)相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2003年

10 邢彥玲;跨國(guó)公司子公司決策自主權(quán)研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 黃淑玲;試論子公司債權(quán)人的法律保護(hù)[D];西北大學(xué);2006年

2 惠玲玉;公司法人格否認(rèn)的司法適用[D];天津商業(yè)大學(xué);2011年

3 楊裕清;母子公司中的人格否認(rèn)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

4 劉佳;我國(guó)一人公司法人格否認(rèn)分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

5 劉兆勝;公司法人格否認(rèn)的理論與訴訟實(shí)踐[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

6 趙苑辰;試論我國(guó)一人公司法人格否認(rèn)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

7 肖紀(jì)連;公司法人格否認(rèn)中股東責(zé)任性質(zhì)研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2011年

8 趙鐳;一人公司法人格否認(rèn)問(wèn)題研究[D];長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué);2012年

9 梁良;我國(guó)公司法人格否認(rèn)制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2012年

10 邢麗萍;公司法人格否認(rèn)制度的司法救濟(jì)[D];太原科技大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1832632