论细分代持股下的股权归属——以区分说为基点

The Ownership of the Shareholders in Subdivision

代持股下的股权归属问题,在理论界和司法实践中一直存在争议。由于我国现有法律规范并未明确规定,因此需要更进一步的解释。我国理论界对此存在形式说、实质说和区分说等,相比较而言,区分说较为合理,但是现有的区分说还应予以完善,区分对内对外关系的不同情形:对外关系中要注意保护完全善意第三人的利益;对内关系中要注意区分代持股行为的不同性质,从而分别判断股权归属。同时,对于对内关系中代持股行为的不同性质应该加强名义股东和实际出资人双方的举证责任,减轻法院对行为性质的判定难度。此外,对于《公司法》司法解释三第24、25条的争议,看似是法条规定的矛盾,实则是对内对外关系区分中法律解释顺序的问题,并未影响区分说下代持股股权归属的本质。

Equity ownership issues in behalf of the shareholders, has been controversial in theory and judicial practice. It does not specify the existing legal norms in China, and therefore it needs further explanation. In our theoretical circles, there are the theory of ＂form＂ exists, ＂essence＂ and ＂distinction＂, etc. , comparatively speaking, the theory of discrimination is more reasonable, but the existing theory of discrimination should be improved. It should distinguish between internal and external relations ： in foreign relations, we should pay attention to the protection of the interests of the fully bona fide third party ; but in the internal relations, we should pay attention to distinguish the different nature of the share holding behav- ior, so as to judge the ownership of shares. At the same time, for the different nature of the behavior of holding shares in the internal relationship, we should strengthen the burden of proof of both the nominal shareholders and the actual inves- tors, and reduce the difficulty of the court to determine the nature of the behavior. In addition, the article 24 and 25 of the corporation law appear to be a contradiction, but it is actually a problem in order to explain the legal distinction between internal and external relations. So it does not ＇affect the nature of the next generation of the distinction between holding eq- uity ownership.