监事竞业禁止义务:司法检视、理论证成和路径架构

Supervisors’Non-competition Obligation:Judicial Review,Theoretical Proof and Path Structure

《公司法》第148条竞业禁止制度主体并未包括监事,由此造成监事竞业禁止义务法律适用上的争议。通过监事竞业禁止义务的司法检视可知,司法实践中对监事竞业禁止义务存在定性差异,有着两种截然相反的裁判观点。究其原因主要在于立法规制的缺位与竞业惩戒的必要性,因而监事承担竞业禁止义务具有必要性与正当性。监事履行竞业禁止义务是构筑委任关系、保护公司利益、提高监事独立性和理顺法律体系必然要求。鉴于当前立法规定的缺位,在立法路径上,应修正相关法律规定,将监事纳入竞业禁止义务主体;在司法路径应以事实为根据,推进司法实质审查;在守法路径可将监事竞业禁止义务植入公司章程,推进公司治理法治化。

Article 148 of the Company Law does not include supervisors as the subject of the non-compete system,which has caused disputes over the legal application of supervisors’non-compete obligations.The judicial review of the non-compete obligation of supervisors shows that there are qualitative differences in the judicial practice on the non-compete obligation of supervisors,and there are two diametrically opposed judgment views.The reason mainly lies in the absence of legislative regulation and the necessity of non-competition punishment,so it is necessary and justifiable for supervisors to undertake the obligation of non-competition.The fulfillment of non-compete obligations by supervisors is an inevitable requirement for building appointment relationships,protecting company interests,improving the independence of supervisors,and straighten out the legal system.In view of the lack of current legislative provisions,on the legislative path,relevant laws and regulations should be amended,and supervisors should be included in the subject of non-competition obligations;on the judicial path,facts should be used as the basis to promote judicial substantive review.It is forbidden to embed obligations into the company’s articles of association,and promote the legalization of corporate governance.