论不公平关联交易中公司债权人的保护

发布时间：2018-08-17 14:22

【摘要】：关联交易表面上是在平等独立的主体之间进行的自愿交易行为,实质上由控股股东、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人员享有控制权和重大影响力,决定关联交易是否发生,决定交易对价的高低,甚至决定交易对价为无偿。从关联交易协议的达成到履行完毕,只体现了当事人单方的意志,公司的独立意志被过滤了。关联交易具有不公平倾向,对公司债权人等利益相关者有很大的危险性。公司债权人总是处于相对弱势的地位。不公平关联交易违反了利益平衡理论、禁止权利滥用原则和公司社会责任理论。所以,需要加强对不公平关联交易中公司债权人的保护。不公平关联交易的表现形式复杂多样,典型形式有关联购销等。关联交易是否公平,关键体现在交易对价的高低,一般表现为是否在适当的范围内偏离正常的交易价格。可以通过臂长交易比较法和竞争市场比较法这两种相互联系的方法或者其中的一种来判断,可以参考可比非受控价格法等各国确定正常交易价格的方法来判断,亦可以参酌《合同法》司法解释(二)第19条来认定。公司法保护不公平关联交易中公司债权人的不足主要表现在关联交易批准制度的局限、表决权排除制度的缺陷、规制关联交易效力的有限和“揭开公司面纱”制度的困境。对不公平关联交易中公司债权人的保护转向寻求民法上的一般保护,成为一种必然选择。债权人撤销权制度是一种良好的司法救济路径。债权人撤销权的性质在理论上主要有四种学说。公司债权人撤销权的要件由公司债权人方面、公司方面、关联方方面和转得人方面的要件组成。公司债权人行使撤销权必须以自己的名义在诉讼上行使。因对债权人撤销权性质认识不同,撤销权诉讼的性质不同,撤销权诉讼的当事人也不同。撤销权的行使范围以提起诉讼的公司债权人各自的债权为限。撤销权的行使期间无论是1年还是5年的规定,其性质都为除斥期间,只是起算点不同。一旦撤销权期间经过,则公司债权人丧失的是实体权利撤销权本身。行使撤销权所支付的律师代理费、差旅费等必要费用,由公司负担；关联方有过错的,应当适当分担。撤销权行使的效力应采用相对无效说,在共同担保保全的必要范围内无效,超出保全范围的部分继续有效,不及于没有参与诉讼的公司债权人。在没有抵销的场合,应当由公司全体一般债权人平等受偿取回的财产,但还有一个实际履行顺序的问题。建议立法赋予行使撤销权的公司债权人以优先受偿权。不公平关联交易一旦被撤销,公司免除关联方的债务不发生法律效力。关联方因受领公司的财产,负有返还财产或者折价赔偿的义务。若转得人受领财产时无偿,或者有偿并且恶意,则撤销权的效力及于转得人。
[Abstract]:On the surface, related party transactions are voluntary transactions between equal and independent subjects. In essence, controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors and senior managers enjoy control and significant influence. Determine whether related party transactions take place, determine the level of the transaction price, or even determine the transaction price is free. From the conclusion of the related transaction agreement to the completion of performance, it only reflects the unilateral will of the parties, and the independent will of the company is filtered. Related party transactions have unfair tendency and are very dangerous to corporate creditors and other stakeholders. Corporate creditors are always in a relatively weak position. Unfair related party transactions violate the theory of balance of interests, prohibit abuse of rights and corporate social responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of corporate creditors in unfair related party transactions. The forms of unfair related transactions are complex and diverse, and the typical forms are associated buying and selling. The key to the fairness of related party transactions lies in the level of the transaction price, which is generally reflected in whether to deviate from the normal trading price within the appropriate range. It can be judged by two interrelated methods, the arm length trading comparison method and the competitive market comparison method, or one of them, and can be judged by reference to the methods used by countries such as the non-controlled price method to determine the normal transaction price. It can also be determined by Article 19 of the Judicial interpretation of contract Law (2). The shortcomings of company creditors in the protection of unfair related party transactions in company law are mainly reflected in the limitations of the approval system of related party transactions, the elimination of the defects of the voting rights system, the limited effectiveness of regulating related party transactions and the plight of the system of "unveiling the veil of the company". It is an inevitable choice to seek general protection in civil law for the protection of corporate creditors in unfair related party transactions. The system of creditor's right of rescission is a good way of judicial remedy. There are four theories about the nature of creditor's right of rescission. The elements of corporate creditor's right of rescission consist of company creditor, company, related party and transfer person. The creditors of the company must exercise the right of rescission in their own name. Because of the different understanding of the nature of the creditor's right of rescission, the nature of the action of the right of rescission is different, and the litigant of the right of rescission is also different. The scope of the exercise of the right of rescission is limited to the respective claims of the creditors of the company that initiated the action. The duration of rescission, whether for one year or five years, is except the period of exclusion, but the starting point is different. Once the period of rescission goes through, the company creditor loses the right of revocation of entity right itself. The necessary expenses such as attorney's agency fee, travel expenses and so on paid by the party exercising the right of rescission shall be borne by the company; if the related party is at fault, it shall be properly shared. The effect of the exercise of the right of rescission should be based on the theory of relative invalidity, which is invalid within the necessary scope of joint security preservation, and which continues to be valid beyond the scope of preservation, less than that of the creditors of the company without taking part in the litigation. In the absence of set-off, property that should be repaid equally by all general creditors of the company, but there is also a question of the actual order of performance. It is suggested that legislation give priority to the creditors of the company exercising the right of rescission. Once an unfair related party transaction is cancelled, the company's cancellation of the related party's debt shall not have legal effect. The related party shall bear the obligation to return the property or compensate for the discount due to the property of the company. If a person receives the property free of charge, or paid and malicious, the effect of the right of rescission to the transferred person.
【学位授予单位】：扬州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】