论公司对外担保能力的法律规制

发布时间：2018-05-03 22:44

本文选题：公司担保 + 实体规制　；参考：《郑州大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 在市场经济的健康发展之中,公司对外担保的现象十分普遍。但公司法发展的历程并没有始终如一的对待公司对外担保行为,具体而言,在公司法之初一般均严格限制公司对外提供担保,无论是英美法系的越权原则,还是大陆法系的“严格禁止,例外许可”模式。立法的设计为何要严格规制公司的对外担保行为呢,这种普遍现象的背后有着怎样的逻辑,以至于体现国家干预的立法要对此予以限制,这是我们需要首先明确的问题,当然这并不仅仅是我们要寻找的答案。自乌尔比安以来,公法和私法有着相对明确的领域,尽管并不十分清晰。公法和私法明确各自领域的一个重要的意义即在于确立私权的存在空间,避免公法的过分干预。而根据私法自治的原则,公司作为法人,是独立的民商事主体,对外提供担保理应是其应有之义。但这只是在私法的眼光去观察,本质上私法需要公法的守护,守护的手段当然并不排除公权力的干预,但干预必须存在干预的前提,干预的目的也是为了维护私法更好的自治。我们在这里,不仅仅在于观察公司对外担保的逻辑,而是在公司担保自治的角度引申出国家规制的合理性及不足,从而在一定程度上去寻找法律干预公司担保的界限。通过本文的考察,公司对外担保的行为没有必要从实体上予以限制,.立法完全可以通过对公司对外担保的程序规制来实现担保的价值。而程序的规制是复杂的,这需要我们细致的工作,从而在程序上最大可能保证公司对外担保的合理性。
[Abstract]:In the healthy development of market economy, the phenomenon of external guarantee is very common. However, the course of the development of company law has not been consistent with the behavior of company guarantee. Specifically, at the beginning of the company law, it is generally strictly restricted that the company provides guarantee, regardless of the principle of ultra vires in Anglo-American law system. It is also the mode of strict prohibition and exceptional permission in civil law system. Why should legislation be designed to strictly regulate the acts of foreign guarantee of companies? what kind of logic exists behind this universal phenomenon, so that legislation that reflects state intervention should restrict this? this is a question that we need to clarify first. Of course, this is not just the answer we are looking for. Since Ulbien, public and private law have relatively clear, albeit not very clear, areas. One of the important meanings of public law and private law is to establish the existence space of private right and avoid the excessive interference of public law. According to the principle of autonomy of private law, the company, as a legal person, is an independent subject of civil and commercial affairs. But this is only observed from the perspective of private law. In essence, private law needs the protection of public law, and the means of guardianship certainly do not exclude the intervention of public power, but intervention must have the premise of intervention, and the purpose of intervention is also to safeguard the better autonomy of private law. We are here not only to observe the logic of the company's external guarantee, but also to extend the rationality and insufficiency of the state regulation from the perspective of the autonomy of the company's guarantee, thus to find the limits of the legal intervention in the company's guarantee to a certain extent. Through the investigation of this paper, there is no need to restrict the behavior of external guarantee from the entity. The legislation can realize the value of the guarantee through the procedural regulation of the company's external guarantee. The regulation of the procedure is complex, which requires our detailed work, so as to guarantee the rationality of the company's external guarantee as far as possible.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D912.29

【引证文献】