earticle

영어

Along with the issuing and application of “Judicial Explanation of Company Law (IV)”, the dichotomy used in the aspect of effectiveness of company resolutions related to company law is transformed into trichotomy, namely, the disposing method for defects existing in resolutions made by the shareholders’ meeting is changed into the three categories as cancellation of the resolutions, invalidity of resolutions and ineffectiveness of the resolutions after dividing the original resolutions according to the degree of resolutions’ defects. In terms of the “dichotomy”, there is logical defect: the cancellation or invalidity of resolutions is determined on the premise of effectiveness of the resolutions. For example, all the resolutions made in the shareholders’ meeting convened by the personnel without convening power or in the meetings which are never held are actually the ineffective resolutions, in this regard, if they are categorized into the cancellation or invalidity of resolutions, the errors are obvious and the conduct is improper. Therefore, “Judicial Explanation of Company Law (IV)” is formulated and carried out with the aim to stabilize the market orders. Although it makes up the loopholes existing in “dichotomy” theory and provides the legal basis for judicial practice, there are still disputes on part of its content. Resolution non-establishment of shareholders’ meeting means that the resolution of shareholders’ meeting does not meet the conditions for establishment. If there are serious flaws in the procedure, the resolution may not be established. The resolution non-establishment system preserves the company’s operation procedure and the company's management orders. Based on the research and study of the cases in which the resolution of shareholders’ meeting is not established in China’s judicial practice in recent ten years, this paper analyzes the five reasons for the non-establishment of the resolution of shareholders’ meeting. Although China has established the “three-part law” on the flaw effect of resolutions of the shareholders board, the plaintiff scope, the free discretion of other circumstances, the limitation, forged signature and other aspects still face disputes due to unclear provisions.First, it is necessary to expand the scope of the plaintiff who fails to establish the resolution of the shareholders’ meeting. According to the specific situation, the company’s executives and employees, the company's creditors and nominal shareholders should be respectively granted the right of appeal against the resolution of the shareholders’ meeting. Secondly, the influence of forged signature on the resolution validity of the shareholders’ meeting should be determined. Secondly, the influence of forged signature on the resolution validity of the shareholders' meeting should be determined. In the first place, if there is no actual meeting and the meeting fails to reach the adoption ratio, the resolution of the shareholders’ meeting shall be determined as invalid. In the second place, if the resolution adoption ratio is reached after the removal of forged signature, it is a general defect and can be listed as a revocable type. Thirdly, the boundaries between the non-establishment of the resolution and the revocability of the resolution are clearly divided. The three aspects are compared respectively from the three aspects of different defects degrees, different litigation subjects and different prescription periods. The non-establishment of the resolution is a serious procedural defect. Fourth, to determine the impact of the resolution on external legal relations, it is necessary to distinguish the malicious counterparts or the goodwill counterparts. If the malicious counterparts, they should return all the vested interests and investigate the corresponding legal responsibility. In the case of a kind counterpart, there is no need to return the benefits obtained related to the resolution.

중국어

随着《公司法司法解释(四）》1) 的出台和运用, 公司法关于公司决议效力方面由之前的二分法转 为三分法, 即根据决议瑕疵的严重程度将瑕疵决议区分为决议可撤销、 决议无效以及决议不成立三 种, 增加了决议不成立制度。 “二分法”存在逻辑上的缺陷 : 瑕疵决议的撤销或者无效, 都是以决议成 立为前提。 但某些股东会瑕疵决议无法归类到无效或可撤销, 如无召集权人召集的股东会所作的决 议, 或者根本没有召开股东会议, 明显属于股东会决议不成立的情况, 若将其规范到决议无效或者 可撤销欠妥当, 所以为稳定市场秩序, 制定并出台了司法解释四, 弥补了“二分法”理论上的漏洞, 为 司法实践提供了法律依据, 但仍存在部分争议。 股东会决议不成立是指股东会决议因不符合成立的条件而未形成, 如果程序上存在严重瑕疵 可能导致决议不成立, 决议不成立制度维护的是公司运行程序以及公司的管理秩序。 文章对现阶段 中国近十年的司法实践中有关股东会决议不成立的案件进行调查研究的基础上, 分析股东会决议 不成立的五种事由。 虽然中国已经确立了股东会决议瑕疵效力的“三分法”, 但原告范围、 其他情形 的自由裁量以及时效、 伪造签名等方面仍面临着因规定不明确而产生争议, 对此, 第一, 需要扩大 提起股东会决议不成立的原告范围, 应当根据具体情况, 分别赋予公司高管及职工、 公司债权人以 及名义股东对股东会决议不成立的提诉权 ; 第二, 应当确定伪造签名对股东会决议效力的影响, 首 先没有实际召开会议以及召开会议但没有达到通过比例的应当确立为股东会决议不成立, 其次若 去除伪造签名后达到决议通过比例, 则属于一般瑕疵, 可列为可撤销的类型 ; 第三, 清晰划分决议 不成立与决议可撤销的界限, 分别从瑕疵程度不同、 诉讼主体不同、 时效期间不同三个方面进行对 比, 决议不成立属于严重程序瑕疵, 由股东、 董事、 监事等主体提起诉讼, 并且不受时效的限制 ; 第 四, 确定决议不成立对外部法律关系的影响, 这里要区分恶意相对人亦或是善意相对人, 若为恶意 相对人, 则应返还全部既得利益并追究相应的法律责任 ; 若为善意相对人, 则无需返还已经取得的与决议相关的利益。