论文部分内容阅读
董事为什么对公司的债权人承担民事责任是一项必须在法人本质论学说下进行学术探索的工作,而当下的法人组织体说无法为该论题提供正当性依据。在区分作为制度分析与建构支架的“理论逻辑基础”的法人本质与作为本体论意义上的法人本质这个前提下,董事对公司债权人负责的命题不能从其他法人本质论的学说获取立论根据,只能算作法律的特殊规定。为了阐明该特殊规定的法理正当性,有必要超越法人组织体说的局限性,探求法人本质论层面之外的论证根据。从经济分析的方法来看,该特殊规定表现了“帕累托改进”效应,其说服力因之得以增强,可作为董事对公司债权人负责的法理正当性来源。
Why a director assumes civil liability to a creditor of the company is an academic exploration that must be done under the theory of the essence of the corporation, and the current corporate body says it can not provide justification for the issue. The proposition that the director is responsible for the company’s creditors can not take the argument from other doctrine of the essence of the corporation under the premise of distinguishing the corporate nature as the “theoretical logic basis” of institutional analysis and construction and the nature of the corporation as an ontological point of view , Can only be regarded as special provisions of the law. In order to clarify the legal justification of the special provisions, it is necessary to go beyond the limitations of the legal person body to explore the basis of argument beyond the substantive theory of the corporation. From the point of view of economic analysis, this special regulation shows the effect of “Pareto Improvement”, and its persuasiveness is enhanced, which can serve as the source of jurisprudence for the directors to be responsible to the creditors of the company.