【作者】 韩洋；

【导师】 傅穹；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2014， 硕士

【摘要】 在商事交易活动中，交易主体往往采取担保的方式来降低交易风险、保障交易安全。担保作为公司一项重要事务是公司法人具有独立行为能力的体现，也是公司在竞争中的重要手段。所谓公司担保，即指公司以自己的信用或特定财产为债权人之债权实现提供保障的行为。2005年《公司法》第十六条明确肯定了公司具有担保能力，规范了公司对外担保的决策机构和决策程序，突出了公司的意思自治。可以说从现有有关公司担保的法律依据来看，2005年《公司法》第十六条是规制公司对外担保的主要依据。然而，关于2005年《公司法》第十六条的理解与适用，无论是在理论界还是实务界都存在着截然相反的观点。争议主要体现在以下几方面：第一，《公司法》第十六条的规范性质是什么？是效力性强制性规范还是管理性强制性规范，抑或是任意性规范？第二，公司违反《公司法》第十六条签订担保合同的效力如何？是否直接导致公司担保合同无效？第三，公司章程是否具有对世效力，担保合同相对人在签订担保合同时是否应当审查公司章程及决议文件？对这些问题的理解，成为研究公司对外担保制度的重点问题，对于分析和解决公司担保纠纷法律适用，具有重要的价值和实践意义。进行公司对外担保制度的研究具有重要的理论意义和实际意义。在新《公司法》颁布之前，我国1993年《公司法》对公司对外担保制度规定语意不详、结构混乱，给司法解释留下了巨大的空间，学者对于公司是否具有担保能力也展开了激烈的争论。同时，实务当中也存在着大量上市公司控股股东利用其在公司中的优势地位，操纵公司恶意担保，损害公司利益的现象层出不穷。2005年《公司法》第十六条首先肯定了公司对外担保能力，其次根据公司对外担保类型的不同，将公司担保分为一般担保和关联担保。一般担保是指公司为本公司股东之外的自然人和企业提供担保，关联担保则是指公司为股东或实际控制人提供担保。由于实务中，公司违规为公司股东提供担保的现象层出不穷，而各级法院单纯依靠判断《公司法》第十六条的规范性质，结合《合同法》对合同无效的相关规定，来认定公司担保合同效力的裁判思路存在着种种问题。本文试图从探寻公司法第十六条意旨出发，结合公司内外区分理论研究公司违反该条款的公司担保合同效力问题，并通过对案例中法院裁判思路的梳理和解读来分析担保合同相对人审查义务设置的合理性。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the commercial trading activities, Transactions subject often take the form ofguarantees to reduce transaction risk and protect the security of transactions.Guarantees as the company’s important corporate affairs reflected independentincapacitated and is an important tool in the competitions. The so-called corporateguarantee, means the company with their credit or specific property to provideprotection for the creditor’s debt to achieve the behavior of others. The2005"Company Law" Article XVI clearly affirmed that the company has the ability toguarantee. Standardize the decision-making bodies and decision-making proceduresof the company’s external security and highlights the company’s autonomy. From alegal basis for the company to guarantee, The2005"Company Law" Article XVI ismainly based on the company’s external security regulations. However, in2005,"Company Law" Article XVI on the understanding and application, either in theoryor practice circle there are diametrically opposed views. Controversy is mainlyreflected in the following aspects: First, what is the "Company Law" normativenature of Article XVI is? Is the effectiveness of the management of peremptorynorms or peremptory norms, or is arbitrary norms? Second, the company in violationof the "Company Law" Article XVI signed a contract on how the effectiveness of theguarantee? Is a direct result of the company guarantee contract void? Third, whetherthe Articles of Association of the Bank effective, relatively guarantee contractguarantee contract at the time of the signing of the articles of association andwhether the resolution should be reviewed documents? Understanding of theseissues become the focus of external security issues research firm theory, foranalyzing and solving legal disputes the company guarantees applicable, hasimportant value and practical significance.Research the company’s external security system has important theoretical andpractical significance. Before the new "Company Law" was promulgated93yearsof "Company Law" provisions of the company’s external security system is unknownsemantic structure of confusion, to judicial interpretation left a huge space, scholars whether the company has the ability to guarantee a fierce controversy. Meanwhile,there are also a large number of practitioners controlling shareholders of listedcompanies controlled companies using its dominant position to provide security forthemselves, the company becomes an "ATM " phenomenon abound.2005"CompanyLaw" Article XVI first affirmed the ability of the company’s external security,followed depending on the type of external security company, the company isdivided into a general security guarantees and associated guarantees. Generalsecurity refers to a natural person and corporate shareholder of the Company toprovide security outside the association to provide security guarantee refers to thecompany as a shareholder or actual controller. Because of practice, to providesecurity for the company breaches the shareholders phenomenon after another, andrely solely on the courts to determine the "Company Law " normative nature ofArticle XVI, combined with the "Contract Law" the relevant provisions of thecontract is invalid, the company guarantees to identify validity of the contractreferee thought there problems. This paper attempts to depart from the intention toexplore the provisions of Section16, combined with the company secured a contractto distinguish between internal and external validity issues theoretical researchcompany in breach of the terms, and by combing and interpretation of the case toanalyze ideas magistracy guarantee contract counterparty obligations set reviewreasonable.更多还原