资本显著不足规则的法理基础与司法适用

The Doctrine of Inadequate Capital:Theoretical Foundation and Judicial Application

2013年修订《公司法》时确立了完全的资本认缴制,但由于立法时缺乏整体考量,实践中显露诸多弊端。在众多急需跟进的配套措施中,资本显著不足规则颇值得重视。资本显著不足规则的司法适用,长期以来以最低注册资本制度为基础。资本显著不足规则的正当性基础,源于其对有限责任制度的补强,不应随着最低注册资本制度的取消而废止。由于非自愿合同债权人的存在、最低保险并非有限责任之公允对价等,主张排除资本显著不足规则对合同债权人、已购最低保险的公司之适用的观点,应予抛弃。对“资本”概念的理解,也应着眼于公司“持续性的财务健康”。至于对“显著不足”的判断,则应在保留在“定性”标准的基础上,因应不同类型债权人的个性化需求,提出更为细化的评判准则。

In 2013,when the Company Law was revised,a complete capital subscription system was established.However,due to the lack of overall consideration in the legislation,many drawbacks have been revealed in practice.Among the many supporting measures that are in urgent need of follow-up,the importance of the doctrine of inadequate capital should be emphasized.The judicial application of this doctrine was based on the system of minimum registered capital for a long time.However,the theoretical foundation of the doctrine drives from its ability to justify limited liability principle,and the doctrine should not be abolished with the cancelation of the minimum registered capital system.Due to the existence of non-voluntarily contractual creditors and the fact that the minimum insurance premiums are not the fair consideration of limited liability,the opinion regarding excluding contractual creditors and those who already has bought minimum insurance from the scope of the application of the doctrine should be abandoned.The understanding of“capital”should focus on“continuous fiscal health”of the company.As for the judgment of“inadequate”,on the basis of retaining the“qualitative”standard,a more detailed judgment criterion should be proposed in response to the individual needs of different types of creditors.