公司法定代表人越权签署的担保合同效力规则的反思与重构

Reflection and Reconstruction of Validity Rules of Unauthorized Guarantee Contracts Signed by Corporate Legal Representatives

公司对外担保制度蕴含着公司生存权与发展权、公司善治、股权文化、契约精神与信托义务等公序良俗,为效力性规范。私法规范中的所有强制性规范皆为效力性规范。法定代表人越权签署的担保合同无效,除非由公司决议予以追认或善意相对人主张表见代表制度保护。公司法创设的债权人审查章程与决议的注意义务深度影响着《民法典》第504条的解释与适用。已登记章程对法定代表权的限制可对抗债权人。债权人若已尽合理审慎的形式审查义务,即为善意。履行注意义务以理性人标准为主,主观标准为辅。越权担保合同无效时,相对人可请求法定代表人履约或赔偿,但与公司无涉。建议新《公司法》原则禁止公司对外作保。要根除同案不同判现象,既需推动立法精准化、可诉化与可裁化,更要消除法律解释碎片化;要破除法律部门藩篱,扭转"重合同法、轻公司法"现象;要终结公章至上论和法定代表人至上论,区分法定代表人代表行为和公司决议行为。

The legal rules on corporate decisions on guaranteeing for third parties are mandatory and invalidating, as they safeguard public policies of corporate survival, good governance, shareholders’ rights, freedom of contracts and fiduciary duties. All mandatory rules of private law are invalidating. Unauthorized guarantee contracts signed by legal representatives are void unless rectified by corporate ex-post decisions, or by the operation of apparent representation in favor of bona-fide creditors. The duty of care for the creditors to prudently examine corporate authorization decisions influences the interpretation and application of article 504 of the Civil Code. The restrictions imposed by registered bylaws on the authorities of legal representatives may defend against creditors. The creditors having fulfilled the duty of care are protected as bona-fide creditors. The performance of the duty of care should be tested by a reasonable person, except for more professional creditors. Where an unauthorized guarantee contract is void, the creditor may only hold the legal representative accountable. The legislature should prohibit the corporation from guarantying for other debtors unless permitted by legislature or bylaws. Courts should render the same rulings in the same type of cases. It is necessary to promote the precision, litigation and adjudication of legislation, but also to eliminate fragmentation of legal interpretation. The judicial philosophy favoring contract law while ignoring corporate law should be reversed. It is wrong to worship corporate seals or signatures of legal representatives, while ignoring corporate decisions or bylaws. Representation per se is different from corporate decision.