|
|
On the Denial of the Corporate Personality of Affiliated Corporations: Reflections on Judgments and the Due Position |
WANG Fan1, SHI Guanbin2 |
1.School of Law, Hainan University
2.School of Law, East China Normal University |
|
|
Guide |
|
Abstract: In judicial practice, there is a confusion of generalization in denying the legal personality of affiliated corporations, which contradicts the basic concept of modern corporation law that corporations have independent legal personality and may affect the development and growth of group corporations in practice. The generalization of the legal personality of affiliated corporations can mainly be attributed to the absence of substantive law, excessive interference of irrational judicial trial concepts in commercial autonomy, and more comprehensive protection of creditor rights and interests by the system of denying legal personality. The Corporation Law of the People's Republic of China, which is currently being revised, has initially filled the legislative gap in the system of denying the legal personality of affiliated companies, but it is still advisable to refine the recognition standards. In future judicial practice, when denying the legal personality of affiliated corporations, the guiding role of the 15th guiding case should be fully utilized. The judge should consider factors such as whether personnel and business are mixed, and regard “whether property is mixed” as the core, to determine whether the legal personality of affiliated corporations is mixed. At the same time, the judge should consider whether “personality confusion behavior” seriously affects the interests of corporation creditors. In addition, judicial practice should strengthen the commercial trial thinking of respecting commercial autonomy, and adhere to the judgment position of denying the legal personality of affiliated corporations in individual cases.
|
Received: 01 April 2023
Published: 15 August 2023
|
|
Fund: |
|
|
|
[1] |
李建伟.关联公司法人人格否认的实证研究[J].法商研究,2021(6):103-115.
|
[2] |
钟三宇.公司人格否认:裁判逻辑、检视与导正[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2022(3):242-253.
|
[3] |
黄辉.公司集团背景下的法人格否认:一个实证研究[J].中外法学,2020(2):494-513.
|
[4] |
侯猛.纪要如何影响审判——以人民法院纪要的性质为切入点[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2020(6):58-69.
|
[5] |
刘贵祥.再谈民商事裁判尺度之统一[J].法律适用,2012(5):2-8.
|
[6] |
[美]弗兰克?伊斯特布鲁克,丹尼尔?费希尔.公司法的经济结构[M].罗培新,张建伟,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2014:50.
|
[7] |
郭富青,王喆.公司集团化对公司法的挑战[J].人文杂志,1999(6):82-86.
|
[8] |
[美]莱纳·克拉克曼,亨利·汉斯曼.公司法剖析:比较与功能的视角[M].罗培新,译.北京:法律出版社,2012:118.
|
[9] |
江必新.商事审判与非商事民事审判之比较研究[J].法律适用,2019(15):3-12.
|
[10] |
彭春,孙国荣.大民事审判格局下商事审判理念的反思与实践——以基层法院为调查对象[J].法律适用,2012(12):68-72.
|
[11] |
余冬爱.民、商区分原则下的商事审判理念探析[J].人民司法,2011(3):79-82.
|
[12] |
侯作前.公司法人格否认理论在税法中的适用[J].法学家,2005(4):109-115.
|
[13] |
蒋辉宇,万素林.公司法人人格否认制度适用期间企业所得税征收的相关问题探析[J].税务研究,2019(9):63-67.
|
[14] |
杨省庭.论我国税法引入公司法人人格否认制度[J].法学杂志,2011(1):112-114.
|
[15] |
贺丹.上市公司重整中的公司集团破产问题[M]//王欣新、尹正友.破产法论坛:第7辑.北京:法律出版社,2012:339.
|
[16] |
张越.立法技术原理[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2020:250.
|
[17] |
李晓燕,王昕娅.论关联企业的法律识别[J].晋阳学刊,2020(1):112-116.
|
[18] |
刘刚健.论企业集团的概念和法律地位[J].政法论坛,1992(2):90-95.
|
[19] |
徐海燕,刘俊海.论商事纠纷的裁判理念[J].法学杂志,2010(09):38-42.
|
[20] |
俞秋玮,贺幸.商事裁判理念对审判实践影响之探析[J].法律适用,2014(2):2-7.
|
[21] |
刘俊海.公司自治与司法干预的平衡艺术:《公司法解释四》的创新、缺憾与再解释[J].法学杂志,2017(12):35-49.
|
[22] |
刘权.论个人信息处理的合法、正当、必要原则[J].法学家,2021(5):1-15.
|
[23] |
蒋红珍.比例原则适用的范式转型[J].中国社会科学,2021(4):106-127.
|
[24] |
蒋红珍.比例原则位阶秩序的司法适用[J].法学研究,2020(4):41-54.
|
[25] |
徐强胜.我国公司人格的基本制度再造——以公司资本制度与董事会地位为核心[J].环球法律评论,2020(3):57-70.
|
[26] |
周建军.试论公司法人人格否认制度及其适用[J].社会科学家,2008(1):85-87.
|
[27] |
赵相昌.公司法人人格否认的理论基础与制度构建[J].经济经纬,2007(2):157-160.
|
[28] |
陈现杰.公司人格否认法理述评[J].外国法译评,1996(3):79-92.
|
[29] |
王利明.我国案例指导制度若干问题研究[J].法学,2012(1):71-80.
|
[30] |
资琳.指导性案例同质化处理的困境及突破[J].法学,2017(1):141-151.
|
[31] |
雷磊.指导性案例法源地位再反思[J].中国法学,2015(1):272-290.
|
[32] |
最高人民法院办公厅.中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报(2013年卷)[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2014:268.
|
|
|
|