股权转让合同解除规则的妥当构建:以对指导案例67号的审思为核心

On the Proper Construction of the Rule of Rescinding Stock Transfer Contract:Taking No. 67 Guidance Case as a Basis

2016年9月19日,最高法发布指导案例67号。指导案例67号不仅具有实现相关案件同案同判的司法价值,更在确立、推广商事组织法裁判思维方面凸显其指导/示范价值。公司法学界虽已就其编写技术、裁判理由部分提出诸多检讨,却对指导案例67号所存在的政策目的与法律手段之间的错配关系疏于关注。就指导案例67号而言,其所需处理的核心法律问题,在于如何抑制股权转让合同解除之后,因股权自动逆向复归而导致的代理成本。为填补现行法律体系存在的漏洞、满足组织法交易的特殊需求与运行逻辑,指导案例67号错误选择了限缩股权转让合同之解除事由--排除《合同法》第167条之合同解除规定的适用--这一司法适用路径,并因此在裁判说理上出现论证不明、评价矛盾、文不对题等问题。而事实上,解决此项组织法问题的恰当路径,应是类推适用《公司法》司法解释三第24条第3款或者《公司法》第71条第2款,或是重新解释《合同法》第97条所指的“合同性质”,以重构股权转让合同解除的法律效果。在具体案型的处理问题之外,指导案例67号更提醒学界未来应在商法/组织法思维的确立之外,更加注重司法实践实现该种思维的手段选择的研究和检讨。

The Chinese People’s Supreme Court released No. 67 guidance case on Sep. 19th, 2016. The case not only aims at achieving the value of coherent judicial attitude towards alike cases, but promoting commercial organization thinking as well. Although lots of academic criticism have arisen since its release, the mismatch between its policy goals and chosen means has been largely ignored. The main legal issue to be resolved in No. 67 Guidance case is to reduce or even eliminate agency cost brought by automatic restoration to stock transfers after the rescind of stock transfer contract. To meet that need and fill the gap in current law, Chinese People’ s Supreme Court erroneously chose to narrow the scope of causes of rescind, which make its judicial reasoning unconvincing. Indeed, the correct way to fill the gap is to reconstruct the legal effect of contract rescinding. Beyond the mismatch itself, No. 67 guidance case also remind corporate law academy to focus more on the relationship between policy goals and chosen judicial means.