【作者】 张璇；

【导师】 万建华； 刘兆君；

【作者基本信息】 中南财经政法大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 隐名出资是商事主体为实现其利益最大化而作出的自治安排,隐名出资所“隐去”的是在公司内外部文件上的记载,而“显名”涉及公司内部股东资格的确认以及公司内外部文件关于股东资格的变更记载或登记。有限责任公司的正常运行对公司人合性具有较高的要求,隐名出资人显名冲突在此间表现得较为突出。隐名出资人显名的针对性规定见于《公司法解释(三)》第24条第3款,《九民纪要》第28条对司法解释中的规定进行了补充;《公司法解释(三)》第22条、第23条对一般的股权归属争议作出了规定。《公司法》对公司内部文件对股东的记载及股东登记作出了规定。这些规定整体分布较为分散,相互关系不够明晰,在实践适用中存在忽略公司人合性、法条援引不一致和具体要件解释不一等问题。股东资格确认属于公司内部自治事项,在隐名出资情况下确认股东资格应当依据实质要件进行判断。在取利型隐名出资中,名义股东在符合资合性与人合性要求时享有股东资格;在行权型隐名出资中,隐名出资人因实际行使股东权利且其他股东对此无异议而获得股东资格。隐名出资人显名的动态过程伴随隐名出资合同的解除,但合同解除并不能直接导致显名的结果。隐名出资人的显名应适当参照股权对外转让的规定,在取利型隐名出资中,隐名出资人从外部进入公司应当得到其他股东的同意;在行权型隐名出资中,隐名出资人的地位相当于已经受让股权但暂未登记的受让股东。股东变更时公司应当履行变更内部文件记载的义务,但公司外部股东资格的登记因行政机关的参与具有强烈的公示性,应当受到法律规定的限制,并无损于国家安全和社会公共利益。隐名出资人的股东资格确认应当适用《公司法解释(三)》第24条第3款;股东资格登记应当适用《公司法》第32条第3款,登记的限制条件应适用《公司法》《公务员法》等相关法律规定。在对《公司法解释(三)》第24条第3款的“其他股东半数以上同意”条件进行适用时,“其他股东”一般不包括名义股东,但名义股东自己也出资时其意见应考虑在内。“半数以上”应为股东人数半数以上。对于其他股东“同意”的含义应当解释为其他股东在诉讼中未表示异议的应视为同意显名。隐名出资人并未参与公司事务的,其他股东仅“知情加无异议”不能作为支持其显名的依据,而只有在符合《九民纪要》第28条中的“行权加无异议”条件时才能视为其他股东同意显名。依据诚实信用原则,其他股东若事先表达了“同意”,在诉讼中不得恶意反对显名。为保障争议股权的妥善处置,在隐名出资人请求显名、名义股东有意愿退出公司时,其他股东不同意也不购买争议股权的,应视为同意显名。在特殊的隐名出资中,《公司法解释(三)》第24条第3款仍应作为判断显名的依据,但当隐名出资人本身也为登记股东时,可以排除该条款的适用。在判断隐名出资人是否能够登记为股东时,应当考虑法律规定的限制和善意第三人的保护。因隐名出资人显名而引起的诉讼可以由隐名出资人或名义股东提出,但都应当以公司为被告。在举证责任分配上,应当由隐名出资人举证证明享有股东资格的积极事实,而对于“其他股东无异议”的消极事实,可以通过其他股东自认或实际行使权利持续一定的期间来证明。股东资格登记所受到的限制应当由相对方证明,在相对方未对登记突破法律限制情况提出质疑时,人民法院应当予以释明。人民法院对隐名出资人显名案件的裁判说理应当体现推理过程,并注意用词准确,使裁判结果更具权威性与可接受性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Dormant investment is an autonomous arrangement made by commercial subjects to maximize their interests.What dormant investment "hides" is the record in the internal and external documents of the company,while " the dominance of dormant investors " involves the confirmation of shareholder qualification within the company and the change of the record on the company internal and external documents.The normal operation of a limited liability company has higher requirements for the company’s humanity,so that the disputes in relation to the dominance of dormant investors is more prominent here.The provisions on the dominance of dormant shareholders are found in article 24,paragraph 3 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law(Third),which is supplemented in article 28 of the Minutes of the Ninth National Court of Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference.Article 22 and 23 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law(Third)provide for general equity ownership disputes.The Company Law also provides rules for the recording or registration of internal and external documents of the company.However,these provisions are scattered and the relationship between them is not clear.There are many problems in judicial practice,including the neglect of the company’s humanity,the confusion of legal basis and different interpretations of the law.The confirmation of shareholder qualification is a matter of internal autonomy of the company.In the case of dormant investment,the confirmation of shareholder qualification shall be judged according to the substantive requirements.In the case of profit-taking dormant investment,nominal shareholders shall enjoy shareholder qualification when they meet the requirements of capital and person suitability.In the case of right-exercising dormant investment,the dormant investor shall be qualified as a shareholder because he actually exercises his shareholder’s rights and other shareholders have no objection to it.The dynamic process of the dominance of dormant investors is accompanied by the termination of the anonymous investment contract.But contract termination does not directly lead to desired results.The dominance of dormant investors shall appropriately refer to the provisions on the transfer of equity.In the case of profit-taking dormant investment,the dormant investor entering the company from the outside shall obtain the consent of other shareholders.In the case of right-exercise dormant investment,the status of the dormant investor is equivalent to the transferee shareholder who has been transferred but has not been registered.The company shall perform the obligations to record in the internal documents when the shareholder changes.However,the registration of shareholders outside of the company is highly public because of the participation of the administrative organ,so that it should be limited by the laws and the security and social public interests of the state.The shareholder qualification of the dormant investor shall be applied to the act of article 24,paragraph 3 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law(Third).The registration of shareholders shall apply to article 32 of the Corporation law.The restriction of registration is found in other laws such as the Company law and the Civil Servant Act.In the case of "the consent of the other shareholders" of article 24,paragraph 3 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law(Third),"Other shareholders" generally do not include nominal shareholders.but when the nominal shareholders themselves contribute,it is necessary to consider their opinions."More than half" should be more than half of the shareholders.If the other shareholders do not object,it shall be deemed to have agreed.If the dormant investor does not participate in the affairs of the company,other shareholders only "informed plus no objection" cannot be used as the basis to support.Only when the conditions of "exercise plus no objection" in article 28 of the Minutes of the Ninth National Court of Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference are met can other shareholders be deemed to have agreed.Based on the principle of good faith,if other shareholders express their "consent" in advance,they shall not object maliciously in the lawsuit.In order to ensure proper disposal of the disputed equity,when the dormant investor requests the dominance and the nominal shareholder to have the intention to withdraw from the company,if the other shareholders do not agree or purchase the disputed equity,they shall be deemed to have agreed.In the special dormant investment,the article 24,paragraph 3 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law(Third)should still be the basis for judging.However,when the dormant investor is himself a registered shareholder,the application of this clause can be excluded.When judging whether a dormant investor can be registered as a shareholder,the restrictions prescribed by law and the protection of bona fide third parties shall be taken into account.The lawsuit caused by the dominance of dormant investors may be brought by the dormant investor or the nominal shareholder,but the company shall be the defendant.In the allocation of burden of proof,the dormant investor shall provide evidence to prove the positive fact of enjoying the shareholder qualification.For the negative fact that "other shareholders have no objection",it can be proved by the other shareholders’ self-belief or actual exercise of rights for a certain period of time.Restrictions on the registration of shareholders’ qualifications shall be proved by the other party.If the other party fails to challenge the violation of legal restrictions on registration,the people’s court shall give an explanation.The reasoning of the people’s court in the case of the dominance of dormant investors shall reflect the reasoning process,and pay attention to the accurate use of words,so as to make the judgment result more authoritative and acceptable.更多还原