|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2014)05-0126-07 |
| |
|
清算义务人承担连带清偿责任的法理逻辑——评最高人民法院指导案例9号案 |
| |
高永周 |
| |
|
（南京大学法学院，江苏南京，210093） |
| |
| 摘 要： 公司法人格否认制度与清算义务人的损害赔偿责任制度性质迥异，两者的理论基础并不相同，只有在清算义务人怠于履行清算义务，并具有法人格否认情节时，权利人方可择一适用。公司法人格否认制度划定的利益格局是否适用于清算义务人怠于履行清算义务时必须予以考量，不能随意地改变其既定的权利配置。最高人民法院指导案例9号案出现法律适用错误的根源，在于忽略了《公司法》第20条第3款与“公司法适用司法解释二”第18条第2款所蕴含的不同法理逻辑。因后者没有考虑复数股东间权利配置及债权人的权利限制，在实践中可能导致逆向选择以及规避该款的结果。 |
| |
| 关键词： 公司法人格否认；清算侵权责任；连带清偿责任；权利配置；法理逻辑 |
| |
|
| |
On the legal logic for the liquidator’s joint responsibility |
| |
GAO Yongzhou |
| |
（Law School, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China） |
| |
| Abstract: The corporate personality system is different from damage compensation liability of liquidation obligor system definitely, because their theory bases of the two are different. Only in the situation that the liquidation obligor is indifferent to fulfill the obligation of liquidation and there is a disregard of the corporate personality circumstance, can the obligee chose one as he wishes. Whether the interests of the company law personality denial system defined pattern applies to fulfill their obligations of liquidation liquidation obligor delayed in must be considered when it can not arbitrarily change the established rights configuration. The basic reason for the misapplication of law in guiding case NO.9 of People’s Supreme Court ignored the different legal logics between Company Law Section20(3) and Provisions of the People’s Supreme court on some issues about the Application of the Company Law(II) Article18(2). The latter does not consider the rights allocation among the number of shareholders and the right limitation of creditors, which may cause adverse selection as well as getting round the article in practice. |
| |
Key words: disregard of corporate personality; liquidation liability for Tort; joint liquidated liability; rights’ allocation; legal logic |
| |
|
