公司越权担保效力判定路径之辨识

发布时间：2018-04-20 22:03

本文选题：越权担保 + 合同效力　；参考：《河北法学》2017年12期

【摘要】：实证分析发现,目前对于公司越权担保效力判定大致可从"《公司法》第16条规范属性"、"内部规范不具对外性"以及"法定代表人越权"三条路径展开。从界定该条文规范属性来认定担保效力是大部分法院所采纳的裁判路径(占比65.94%)。尽管对该行为的认定结果上共识渐进,判定有效占比87.77%,但该裁判思维进路存在一定质疑。该条的违反不能直接指向担保合同效力。同时,不少法院将商事外观原则适用绝对化,一味追求对交易相对人法益的维护,完全忽视公司及其股东利益的保护。基于此,同时考量《公司法》第16条立法本意,公司越权担保效力判定应抛弃从该条规范属性本身来判断其效力的路径,采纳法定代表人越权的路径来认定。由此,相对交易人的主观状态就成为越权担保效力判定的参酌因素,其"善意"应依据是否善尽合理的审查义务来推定,否则反推"恶意",并类推适用无权代理规则。这样既可厘清该行为法律适用上的不当,又可明确交易相对人合理的审查义务,以此平衡越权担保交易当事人之间的法益。
[Abstract]:The empirical analysis shows that, at present, the judgment on the validity of the company's ultra vires guarantee can be carried out from the following three paths: "Article 16 of Company Law", "Internal norms are not external" and "legal Representative exceeds his right". Defining the normative attributes of this provision to determine the validity of security is the judgment path adopted by most courts (65.94%). Although the recognition result of this behavior is gradual and effective 87.77 points, but the judgment thinking path has some doubts. The violation of this clause cannot directly point to the validity of the security contract. At the same time, many courts apply the principle of commercial appearance to the absolute, blindly pursue the protection of the legal interests of the relative parties, and completely ignore the protection of the interests of the company and its shareholders. Based on this, and considering the legislative intention of Article 16 of the Company Law, the judgment of the company's ultra vires guarantee effect should abandon the way of judging its effectiveness from the normative attribute of the article itself, and adopt the path of the legal representative's ultra vires. Therefore, relative to the subjective state of the transactional party, the subjective state of the transactional party becomes the reference factor for determining the validity of the ultra vires guarantee, and its "bona fide" should be presumed according to whether it is good or not to do a reasonable examination obligation, otherwise, it can be extrapolated "maliciously" and the rule of unauthorized agency should be applied by analogy. In this way, we can not only clarify the improper application of the act law, but also clarify the reasonable obligation of the counterparty to examine the transaction, thus balancing the legal interests between the parties involved in the ultra vires secured transaction.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】