论文部分内容阅读
我国《公司法》第20条第3款所规定的公司法人人格否认制度的核心构成要件是股东与公司之间存在责任财产混同,股东对造成这一财产混同具有主观故意。指导案例15号不符合《公司法》第20条第3款的规定,但关联公司在控制股东的恶意操纵下形成责任财产混同与第20条第3款的核心构成要件具有相似性,适用连带责任的法律后果也具有妥当性,因此,法院决定类推适用《公司法》第20条第3款的决定是正确的。类推适用是填补法律漏洞的重要方法,其适用的条件应符合如下四点:存在法律漏洞、法律解释工具失效、构成要件的相似性和适用同一法律效果的妥当性。商法作为民法之特别法,应适用与民法相同的法律方法论。当今中国商法学研究的重点不应再纠缠于商法的独立性和特殊性问题,而应转向以法教义学为基本方法的解释论研究。
The core component of the system of disregarding corporate personality stipulated in Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Company Law of the PRC is that there is a mixture of responsibility and property between the shareholders and the company, and shareholders have the subjective intention of causing the confusion of property. Guiding Case No. 15 does not comply with the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Company Law, but the affiliates’ responsibility for confiscation of property under the malicious manipulation of controlling shareholders is similar to the core elements of Article 20, paragraph 3, The legal consequences of liability are also sound, so the decision of the court to impose analogy on the application of article 20, paragraph 3, of the Corporations Act is correct. The application of analogy is an important method to fill legal loopholes. The applicable conditions should meet the following four points: the existence of legal loopholes, the failure of legal interpretations tools, the similarity of the constituent elements and the validity of applying the same legal effect. As a special law of civil law, commercial law should apply the same legal methodology as civil law. At present, the focus of research on Chinese commercial law should no longer be entangled in the issue of independence and particularity of commercial law. Instead, it should be shifted to the study of interpretative theory based on legal teachings.