董事催缴责任主体的差异化认定与责任构造

Differentiated Determination of Liability Subjects in Directors’ Capital Call Obligations and the Construction of Liability

摘要: 2023年修订的《公司法》第51条确立了董事会催缴出资制度，但“负有责任的董事”的认定标准与“承担赔偿责任”的具体规则尚不明确。董事催缴责任主体须以职责要件、行为要件和过错要件的框架进行个别化识别，排除以形式身份替代实质判断的归责模式，并根据任期、职务类型及身份关联作差异化认定。董事催缴责任具有独立于股东出资义务的外部属性与基于董事会集体决策机制的内部共同性。在责任形态上，按份责任存在救济局限，全额连带责任又有过罚失度之弊，比例连带责任更契合复数董事共同而有区别的责任结构。比例份额的确定应综合考量职务位阶、过错形态与专业背景三项因素。异议董事免责与商业判断规则则构成责任成立与范围限缩的重要边界。

Abstract: Article 51 of the 2023 revised Company Law establishes a board capital call regime, yet the criteria for identifying “directors bearing liability” and the specific rules governing their “assumption of compensatory liability” remain unclear. The subjects of directors’ capital call liability should be identified individually through a framework comprising duty, conduct, and fault elements, rejecting any imputation model that substitutes formal status for substantive inquiry, and applying differentiated treatment based on tenure, position type, and identity relationships. A director’s capital call liability possesses both an external character independent of shareholders’ capital contribution obligations and an internal commonality rooted in the board’s collective decision-making mechanism. As to the form of liability, several liability suffers from remedial limitations, while full joint and several liability risks disproportionality. Proportional joint and several liability better accords with a joint-yet-differentiated liability structure among multiple directors. The apportionment of proportional shares should comprehensively weigh three factors: hierarchical rank within the board, degree of fault, and professional background. Dissenting-director exemptions and the business judgment rule serve as important boundaries for both establishing liability and limiting its scope.