《公司法》第16条强制性质解释的误区及重构

发布时间：2018-05-17 14:11

本文选题：《公司法》第条 + 公司担保　；参考：《湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年06期

【摘要】：《公司法》第16条为公司提供担保规定了"限制性"要求。当前主流裁判认为,该条是"管理性强制性规定",且"不具有对抗或约束第三人"的效力,据此得出了违反该条并不导致担保无效的结论。这种法律适用的思路是错误的。只有斩断《公司法》第16条与《合同法》第52条第(五)项的联结,才能纠正公司担保效力认定问题上的法律适用错误。现有理论试图构建新的解释路径,以求摆脱适用困境。然而,新的路径,要么拘泥旧有框架,要么需付出更大的理论代价,均不足取。《公司法》第16条具有积极强制与消极强制两个方面。积极一面,以公司自治行为——章程和决议——为对象;消极一面,以排除法定代表人以公司名义为担保为目的。两者均非《合同法》第52条第(五)项意义上的强制。
[Abstract]:Section 16 of the Company Law provides a "restrictive" requirement for a company to provide security. According to the current mainstream judgment, the article is a "regulatory mandatory provision" and "does not have the effect of antagonizing or binding a third party", which leads to the conclusion that the breach of the article does not result in the invalidation of the guarantee. The idea of applying the law is wrong. Only by breaking the connection between Article 16 of Company Law and item (5) of Article 52 of contract Law can we correct the application of law in the determination of the validity of company guarantee. The existing theories try to construct a new way of explanation in order to get rid of the dilemma of application. However, the new path, either sticking to the old framework or paying a greater theoretical price, is not worth taking. Article 16 of Company Law has two aspects: positive compulsion and negative compulsion. On the positive side, the act of corporate autonomy-articles of association and resolutions-as the object; on the negative side, in order to exclude the legal representative in the name of the company for the purpose of security. Neither is compulsory in the sense of Article 52 (5) of the contract Law.
【作者单位】：湘潭大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】