公司代表越权担保的制度逻辑解析——以公司法第16条第1款为中心
邹海林公司代表越权担保的制度逻辑解析——以公司法第16条第1款为中心
Analysis of the Institutional Logic of Ultra Guarantee
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：邹海林
单位：中国社会科学院法学研究所
中文关键词：公司担保；公司代表；越权行为；相对人；抗辩权
英文关键词：company guarantee, company representative, ultra vires, the secured party, right to defense
中文摘要：
自公司法第16条规定以来，我国理论和司法实务界对公司代表越权担保的私法效果问题又继续讨论了十多年，但解释上至今尚存不确定性。事实上，公司代表越权担保的私法效果，有其自身的制度逻辑，包括公司有为他人担保的能力、法人与法人机关之间固有的法秩序以及拒绝给付抗辩权的法理。现有的争论相当程度上脱离公司代表越权担保的制度逻辑，以致各种解释在路径、方法和结论上均有失妥当。理解和适用公司代表越权担保的私法效果，应以其制度逻辑为基础，不论有无违反公司法第16条第1款的情形，依照民法总则第61条的规定，公司代表以公司名义为相对人担保的，均产生归属于公司的私法效果；相对人请求公司承担责任时，公司得以相对人知道或者应当知道公司代表违反公司法第16条第1款为由拒绝承担责任。因有上述认识，我国司法实务有关公司代表越权担保的既有裁判路径应作出实质性的转变。
英文摘要：
Since the amendment of Article 16 of the Chinese Company Law in 2005, the issue of the effect of ultra guarantee has been further discussed for more than 10 years. Even today, there are still uncertainties as to the private law effect of ultra guarantee in its interpretation. In fact, the private law effects of ultra guarantee depends on its institutional logic, which includes a company’s ability to guarantee for others, the inherent legal orders between a legal person and its representative, and the doctrine of the right to refuse the claims of the secured party. The longstanding debate on this matter in China has deviated from the institutional logic of ultra guarantee, leading to inappropriate approaches to as well as methods and conclusions of the interpretation of the effect of ultra guarantee. The effect of ultra guarantee should be interpreted and applied on the basis of its institutional logic. According to this institutional logic, the ultra guarantee made by a company representative in the name of the company has an effect of attribution to the company under Article 61 of the General Rules of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, regardless of whether there is a violation of Article 16 of the Chinese Company Law. However, the company may have the right to refuse the claims made by the secured party for the company to be liable for the ultra guarantee on ground that the secured party knew or should know the fact that the company representative violated the provisions of Article 16 of the Chinese Company Law. Based on the above understanding, a substantive change should be made to the current approach adopted by Chinese courts in the trial of ultra guarantee cases.
全文阅读： 点击下载
