公司对外担保的理论与实践——规范定性、善意认定与缺省决策机关

Judicial Theories and Practice of Corporate Security——Normative Qualitative, Bona Fide Determination and Default Decision-making Organ

相较于1993年《公司法》第60条第3款,现行《公司法》第16条可谓立法上的一大进步,但却仍在规范定性、担保权人的善意认定、第1款的缺省决策机关等问题上未臻明确。主流学说与判例虽意识到第16条并非效力性强制性规定,违反第16条之合同应依越权代表规定确定效力;但并未指出其实为"强制法中非命令性质的赋权规范",反而一再落入定性之争的条件反射之中。要求担保权人承担对决议的形式审查义务可能造成"利益失衡",应借鉴英国公司法理论,从内部管理规则的视角"推定"担保权人的善意。董事会应被"原则上"确定为第16条第1款中的缺省决策机关;但在对外关系上,宜因应"交易安全"的需要做适当调整。

Compared to Article 60 of Corporate Law 1993,Article 16 of Corporate Law 2005 is a great legislative improvement.However,there are still ambiguities in normative qualitative,bona fide determination of security holders and default decision-making organ.Although the mainstream scholarship and judicial practice have realized that Article 16 is not a mandatory rule with the effect of nullifying contracts.Instead of requiring creditors to take the so-called formal inquiry duty,Chinese Corporate Law should refer to the management rule in British Corporate Law.In addition,the board of directors should be regarded as the default decision-making organ when Article 16 is applied.