案外人异议之诉中显名股东名下的股权权属审查标准——以隐名股东作为债务人为切入点

Research on the Examination Standard of Equity Owner⁃ship Under the Name of the Registered Shareholder in a Dissent Action of Execution-Taking the Anonymous Share⁃holder as the Debtor as the Entry Point

“股权代持”案外人异议之诉中,对于债权人以隐名股东作为债务人并申请执行登记在显名股东名下股权,此时显名股东能否申请排除执行的问题,法院在涉案股权权属的审查判断上存在分歧,呈现形式判断标准与实质判断标准两种做法。合理的股权权属审查标准,应当同时兼顾保护债权人合法权益、防范债务人责任财产逃逸与保障案外人财产安定。形式判断标准在此方面存在不足。隐名股东未释放其拥有股权资产的信号来吸引债权人进行交易,故而债权人并未因股权公示信息产生信赖利益,不具有权益保护的优先性。形式审查标准还存在片面追求执行效率的倾向,可能会对真实权利人的合法权益造成侵害。因此,法院宜采取实质审查标准审查涉案股权的实体权属。囿于代持股权事宜的隐蔽性,法院通过代持股权协议等直接证据判断存在代持合意困难,应转向对案外人是否实际出资、能否合理说明出资财产来源以及是否实际行使股东权利等间接证据的审查判断。

When the creditor takes the anonymous shareholder as the debtor and applies for the execution of the registered shareholder's equity,whether the registered shareholder can exclude the execution,the court has two standards:formal examination and substantive examination.The registered shareholder creditor does not have the priority of rights and interests protection because the anonymous shareholder did not release signals of their ownership of equity assets to attract creditors to engage in transactions.Therefore,creditors did not generate trust interests due to the disclosure of equity information and accordingly,the instrument of"Rechtsschein Theorie"in formal examination should not be exercised.Formal examination standard has the tendency of one-sided pursuit of efficiency,which damages substantive justice.Therefore,the court should adopt the substantive examination standard.It is difficult for the court to directly judge the consent of entrustment through the entrustment agreement,so it should turn to indirect evidence such as whether the outsiders actually contribute capital and whether they actually exercise the rights of shareholders.