《民法典》框架下公司代表越权担保裁判规则的解释论

On the Interpretation of the Judgment Rules for Company Representatives Ultraviolet Guarantee under the Framework of the Civil Code

我国公司法学界多数学者逐渐放弃了基于《公司法》第16条规范性质识别的进路,转而从代表权限制角度理解公司代表越权担保合同效力,并从相对人审查义务履行状况的角度认定其是否构成善意相对人。在司法实践方面,公司代表越权担保的法律适用也曾颇为混乱,如今裁判规则已基本统一。《民法典》关于越权代表的法律效果改变了有效与无效两分的安排,确立了合同是否对法人或者非法人组织发生效力的法律效果安排。基于此,在公司代表越权担保情形下,若相对人非善意,则相关担保合同对公司“不发生效力”。在公司代表越权担保法律后果方面,应基于公司代表越权担保的基础行为乃无权代理的判断,类推适用无权代理法律后果的规定,改变类推适用无效担保法律后果法律规范的裁判规则,确定相对人非善意情形下,不仅担保合同对公司不发生效力,而且公司无须基于缔约过失责任承担赔偿责任。

Most scholars in the field of company law gradually gave up the approach of identifying the normative nature of Article 16 of the"Company Law",and instead understood the validity of a company representative’s ultra vires guarantee contract from the perspective of the limitation of representation rights,and determined it from the perspective of the counterparty’s review of the performance of obligations to decide whether it constitutes a bona fide counterpart.In judicial practice,the legal application of company representatives’ultra vires guarantee was also quite confusing,and now the judgment rules have been basically unified.The"Civil Code"has changed the arrangement of valid and invalid regarding the legal effect of ultra vires representatives,and established the legal effect arrangement of whether a contract is effective for a legal person or an unincorporated organization.Based on this,in the case of the company’s representative overstepping its authority,if the counterparty is not in good faith,the relevant guarantee contract"doesn’t take effect"for the company.In terms of the legal consequences of the company representative’s ultra vires guarantee,it should be based on the judgment that the basic behavior of the company representative’s ultra vires guarantee is an unauthorized agency,and the provisions of the legal consequences of unauthorized agency should be applied by analogy.If the person is not in good faith,not only does the guarantee contract not take effect on the company,but also the company does not need to be liable for compensation based on negligence in the conclusion of the contract.