我国台湾地区公司保证制度研究

发布时间：2018-01-11 06:09

本文关键词：我国台湾地区公司保证制度研究　出处：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：公司保证制度不仅是公司法学理论研究重要内容，更是解决公司在实务遇到的保证难题的基本前提。公司为法人，不同于自然人，公司行为要遵循营利性原则，而公司保证行为并不是传统意义上的营利行为，虽然可能为公司带来潜在利益，但是直接的影响多数是不利的负担。可是现今工商业社会中广泛存在着公司为保证人担保他人债务履行的情形，主要在于公司为社会中之公司，不能脱离其他公司团体而独立存在，特别是在现在这样一个融资较为困难，融资门槛高的时代，每个公司都有可能遇到需要其他公司担保债务的情形，因此在实务中大多数公司都有为保证行为的需求。在《中华人民共和国公司法》2005年修改之前，我们一直坚持着法人权利能力限制的学说，不允许公司为保证行为，但随着实务中需求的越来越急迫，立法者解除了公司为保证行为的限制。尽管原则上允许公司为保证行为，，但是因其不利可能性，公司法用了一个条文专门对公司为保证行为的程序进行规范。如今，《中华人民共和国公司法》（2005年修订）已经实施近十年的时间，实践中又出现了很多亟待解决的问题。通过对比，作者发现我国台湾地区在这个问题上早在1966年就已经提出了解决的办法，比我们早了近半个世纪。纵观现在我国台湾地区的工商业界在此问题上并没有出现什么争执，其原因到底是制度的成熟还是长久的路径依赖，是值得我们探讨的。因此，本文通过对我国台湾地区公司保证制度的介绍和研究，利用历史研究方法、比较研究方法和实证研究方法，从公司保证的法律效力、责任承担、公司法实施的实践效果与现存问题几个方面全面解读我国台湾地区公司保证制度。我国台湾地区依然坚守着法人权利能力限制的原则，认为禁止公司为保证行为为其法令上之限制，不允许公司为保证行为。但是鉴于实践中需要，并未完全切断公司为保证行为的可能性，在法条中保留了“其他法律有规定”和“公司章程规定得为保证”两个例外。据此，公司在其他法律有规定和公司章程规定得为保证行为的情形下是可以对外保证的。公司法理学界将公司保证行为分为违法保证和逾权保证两种情形。在公司违法保证时，也就是没有上述两种例外的情况下，公司为保证行为必然无效；在逾权保证时，即其他法律有规定或者公司章程规定得为保证的情况下，公司负责人超越权限为保证行为，此时要区分债权人善意与否，在债权人恶意情况下，公司保证行为依然对公司无效，只能由公司负责人承担相应责任；在债权人善意的情况下，公司的保证行为为对公司有效。在我国台湾地区公司运营实践过程中，多数公司在自己的章程中规定公司得为保证行为，这使得公司对外保证成为日常经济生活中的常态，而公司不得为保证行为却成为非常态。另外，各公司以自己的方式规定保证的程序和方式，没有统一的规定（甚至有些公司对该行为根本没有具体的规范）。这导致我国台湾地区“公司法”第十六条形同虚设，在现实生活中并没有起到规范的作用。我们认为我国台湾地区在公司保证制度上，形式上坚持了法人权利能力的限制学说，实质上已经突破了该种限制。只是多年来法令不曾变动，公司在为该行为时只在公司章程中明确允许。社会已经形成了一种稳定的格局，即我们常说的路径依赖。我国大陆地区突破了法人权利能力的限制，允许公司为保证行为，这种突破是正确且必要的。我们只需要在现有的法律框架内完善公司保证行为的具体程序即可。因此应借鉴我国台湾地区“公司法”，在董事会有决议为保证时，保证对公司为有效，由公司承担保证责任，然后向董事追偿；在董事会没有决议为保证行为时，保证对公司为无效，此时只能由公司负责人自负责任。从保证目的出发，为更好的保护债权人的利益，应增加公司负责人自身承担保证责任的条款，在我国大陆地区《公司法》第十六条增加一款作为第四款：董事或者股东违反前款规定，应自负保证责任，对公司造成损害的，应负赔偿责任。
[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.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】