论股东对公司对外诉讼裁判提起第三人撤销之诉——兼评最高人民法院指导案例148号

Study on Whether Shareholder May Bring a Third-Party Revocation Action Against Civil Judgement Between the Company and Other Parties——Also Comment on Guiding Case No.148 of the Supreme People’s Court

最高人民法院指导案例148号的裁判要点指出,对于公司与相对人之间的生效裁判,股东无权提起第三人撤销之诉。股东是否为公司对外诉讼的第三人,取决于股东就公司对外法律关系是否有一定的实体法地位。公司对外行为可能有越权、不当关联交易、恶意串通等瑕疵。只有在公司行为构成恶意串通无效时,股东在实体上才有权攻击公司与相对人之间的法律关系,相应地在程序上成为公司诉讼的有独立请求权第三人。若效力瑕疵在实体上仅能由公司主张,则股东因欠缺实体法权限而非为有独立请求权第三人,亦不能基于"代位"而成为无独立请求权第三人。承认股东的原告资格符合第三人撤销之诉的制度机理,且与公司的法人独立人格不矛盾,因为在恶意串通时不存在法人独立人格所保护的法益。股东第三人撤销之诉的效果亦非公司内部救济所能代替。未来应修正该指导案例的裁判规则,承认特定情形下股东的第三人撤销之诉原告资格。

Instructive Case No. 148 of the SPC pointed out that, for the effective judgment between the corporation and the counterparty, shareholders have no right to initiate a third party revocation lawsuit. Whether the shareholder is the third party in the corporation’s external litigation depends on whether the shareholder has a certain substantive status in the corporation’s external legal relationship. The corporation’s external legal acts may have defects such as ultra vires, unfair affiliated transactions, malicious collusion, etc. Only when the corporation’s act constitutes malicious collusion and is invalid, the shareholder has the substantive right to attack the legal relationship between the corporation and the counterparty, and accordingly, he is the third party with independent claims of the corporation’s litigation. If the validity defect can only be claimed by the corporation in substance, the shareholder cannot be the third party with independent claims for lacking the authority in substance, and he cannot be the third party without independent claims based on "subrogation". The recognition of the shareholder’s plaintiff qualification conforms to the system mechanism of the third party revocation lawsuit, and is not inconsistent with the independent legal personality of the corporation, because there is no legal interest that independent personality protects in malicious collusion. The effect of shareholder’s third party revocation lawsuit cannot be replaced by the corporation’s internal remedies. In the future, the rules of the Instructive Case should be amended and the shareholder’s plaintiff qualification of third party revocation lawsuit under certain circumstances should be recognized.