决议的法律行为属性论争与证成——民法典第134条第2款的法教义学分析

Justifying and Debating the Legal Transaction Nature of a Resolution——Analysis of Article 134(2) of the Civil Code from the Legal Dogmatic Perspective

我国民法典已明确决议的法律行为属性,但理论层面依旧存在多种学说争论。对决议的法律行为属性的证成及其特殊性的法理解释,可以弥补对决议一般性问题研究的不足,缓解决议特殊规则与法律行为一般规则之间的紧张关系,并指导二者的衔接,从而在法律行为体系内建构起决议特则。决议的多数决意思形成机制,虽有别于契约行为的合意意思形成机制,但都体现私法自治。关于决议特则的讨论要因循组织法的视角、基本原则与分析范式,注意区分公司成员的意思与公司的意思、成员行为与公司行为、公司的内部意思与外部意思、决议的内部效力与外部效力。特殊的意思表示结构使得决议在成立、效力规则上与契约行为区别很大,但这并不构成对决议的法律行为属性的否定和减损。

China’s Civil Code has already confirmed the legal transaction nature of a resolution notwithstanding existence of disputes among various theories in academia. Justification of the legal transaction nature and legal explanation to the particularity of resolution benefit both academia and legal practice. It could make up for a lack of research on general issues of resolution, ease the tension between rules for resolution and general rules for legal transactions and provide guidance for connecting the two concepts so that dedicated rules for resolution will be established under the legal transaction regime. Although the mechanism offormation of intent for a resolution is the majority rule, as opposed to the mutual assent mechanism for a contractual act, party autonomy nature of a resolution is unassailable. Discussions on a resolution should be carried out in the context of institutional law, following its principles and analysis paradigm. Due attention should be given to differentiating intent of company organs from intent of a company, acts of company organs from acts of a company, internal intent of a company from its external intent, and internal effects of a resolution from its external effects. Unique structure of expression of intent for a resolution entails great disparity between a resolution and a contractual act in terms offormation rules and validity rules. But the differences per se do not deny or derogate the legal transaction nature of a resolution.