【作者】 徐超；

【导师】 李克武；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 法定代表人越权担保问题向来颇具争议,理论和实务研究数不胜数,但大部分都围绕《公司法》第16条的性质或越权担保效力的认定路径展开。早期司法实务中倾向于规范性质识别路径,绝对化适用商事外观主义,过度保护担保相对人的利益,而忽视公司及其股东的利益。近年来,法定代表人越权担保现象屡见不鲜,导致市场经济秩序遭受严重的破坏,法定权限限制路径逐渐成为主流裁判思路,即结合《民法典》第504条规定的表见代表规则内容,判定越权担保的效力。因此,相对人善意是处理法定代表人越权担保纠纷的关键一环。《担保制度解释》虽已对善意进行了界定,但如何判定相对人善意仍为司法实践中的难点。判断合同相对人善意,应当以审查义务为中心。相对人应对公司决议和章程进行审查。审查的内容体现为审查担保决议机关、担保决议的形成是否合法以及单项担保数额是否超过章程规定的数额上限。以“合理审查”标准为限,无需区分审查内容和审查义务标准。《公司法》第16条是一种法定限制形式,相对人须证明其已对公司担保决议、公司章程进行了合理审查来主张自身善意。公司如果提出相对人非为善意,则根据“谁主张、谁举证”原则,由公司一方承担举证责任。解决法定代表人因越权而产生的担保效力问题,必须首先明确该问题的本质。该问题的本质体现为效果归属,旨在解决担保行为的法律效果是否由公司承受,而不是担保合同的效力。相对人为善意,越权担保对公司产生效力。此处的善意应排除过失的因素。相对人为非善意时,参照适用无权代理制度,越权担保为效力待定,公司可享有选择追认的权利。此处的非善意不等同于恶意,二者所涵摄的内容并不相同。法定代表人越权担保纠纷最终仍落脚在相关主体法律责任的分担上。按照上述逻辑,相对人善意时,构成表见代表,公司应承担担保责任。虽然公司履行担保责任后可依法享有追偿权,但现有制度难以保障追偿权真正实现,故要求法定代表人与公司承担连带责任更具可行性和合理性。相对人非善意时,公司是否承担责任取决于其是否追认法定代表人的担保行为,若公司予以追认,公司需承担担保责任;否则,公司便从该担保关系中退出,不存在任何责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 The issue of ultra vires guarantee of legal representative has always been quite controversial,and there are numerous theoretical and practical researches,but most of them focus on the nature of Article 16 of the Company Law or the path to identify the effect of ultra vires guarantee.In the early judicial practice,there was a tendency to standardize the nature identification path,apply the commercial externalism absolutly,and over-protect the interests of the guarantee counterpart,while ignoring the interests of the company and its shareholders.In recent years,the phenomenon of legal representative’s ultra vires guarantee is common,which leads to the serious destruction of market economic order.The path of legal authority restriction gradually becomes the mainstream judgment idea,that is,the effect of ultra vires guarantee is determined by combining with the content of apparent representative rule stipulated in Article 504 of the Civil Code.Therefore,the good faith of the counterpart is a key link to deal with the legal representative’s ultra vires guarantee disputes.Although bona fide has been defined in Guaranty System Interpretation,how to judge bona fide of counterpart is still a difficulty in judicial practice.The judgment of the good faith of the contract counterpart should be centered on the obligation of examination.The counterpart shall review the resolutions and articles of association of the Company.The content of the examination is reflected in the examination of the security resolution authority,whether the formation of the security resolution is legal and whether the amount of a single guarantee exceeds the maximum amount stipulated in the articles of association.With "reasonable review" as the limit,it is not necessary to distinguish between the content of review and the standard of review obligation.Article 16 of the Company Law is a form of statutory restriction,the counterpart must prove that it has conducted a reasonable review of the company’s guarantee resolution and articles of association to claim its good faith.If the company proposes that the counterpart is not in good faith,the company shall bear the burden of proof according to the principle of "who claims and who provides evidence".To solve the problem of guarantee validity caused by the legal representative’s overstepping his power,we must first clarify the essence of the problem.The essence of this problem is the attribution of effect,which aims to solve whether the legal effect of the guarantee behavior is borne by the company rather than the validity of the guarantee contract.Relative to human good faith,the ultra vires guarantee has effect on the company.Good faith here shall exclude the element of negligence.When the relative person is not in good faith,refer to the applicable unauthorized agency system,the effect of the ultra vires guarantee is to be determined,and the company may enjoy the right to choose to ratify.Nongood intentions here are not the same as bad intentions,and they imply different things.The legal representative ultra vires guarantee dispute is still settled in the relevant subject’s legal responsibility sharing.According to the above logic,when the counterpart is in good faith,it constitutes an apparent representative,and the company shall bear the guarantee liability.Although the company can enjoy the right of recourse according to law after performing the guarantee liability,the existing system can not guarantee the true realization of the right of recourse,so it is more feasible and reasonable to require the legal representative and the company to bear joint liability.If the counterpart is not in good faith,whether the company shall bear the liability depends on whether it ratifies the guarantee behavior of the legal representative.If the company ratifies the guarantee behavior,the company shall bear the guarantee liability.Otherwise,the company withdraws from the guaranty relationship without any liability.更多还原