实质性竞争关系下“不正当目的”的认定——以可反驳的推定为视角

Analysis of Cognizance of “Improper Purpose” in Substantial Competition Relationship——In the Perspective of Refutable Presumption

《公司法》第33条第2款规定有限责任公司股东查阅公司会计账簿应受目的限制，然而未对何为“不正当目的”做出具体规定。2017年出台的《公司法司法解释（四）》对“不正当目的”做出细化规定，其中第8条第1项规定了存在实质性竞争关系时应对股东查阅权进行限制，除非符合但书的规定。通过梳理既往司法判例中的不同观点，厘清比较法上实际的法律实施状况，可从立法趣旨、法条文义和比较立法例的角度出发，反思作为我国司法意见多数说的“客观判断说”，并将第8条第1项解释为可反驳的推定，即在一股隋况下，存在实质性竞争关系即推定股东具有不正当目的，然而股东可以通过举证证明白己行使权利目的正当，确保权利得以行使。

The second paragraph of the thirty - third article of the company law stipulates that the shareholders of a limited liability company should be restricted by the purpose of consulting the accounting books of the company, but no specific provisions are made for the ＂improper purpose＂. The ＂judicial interpretation of the company law （tour）＂, promulgated in 2017, makes a detailed provision for the ＂improper purpose＂, of which the first items in the eighth article stipulate the limitation of the right to consult the shareholders when there is a substantial competition relationship, unless it is in accordance with the provisions of the proviso. By combing the dittbrent views of the previous judicial prec- edents and claritying the actual situation of legal implementation in comparative law, from the angle of legislative inter- est, law and meaning and comparative legislation, the ＂objective judgment＂ as the majority of our judicial opinions is refleeted, and the eighth article＇ s first items are interpreted as retutable presumptions, which is the general situation in the case of the existence of substantive competition. It is to say that the shareholders have an improper purpose, but the shareholders can prove their right to exercise their rights by proof of proof, and to ensure the exercise of their rights