从公司代表越权担保角度谈公司代表权限限制界分

Discussing the Demarcation of Company Representative’s Authority Limitation from the Perspective of Company Representative’s Ultraviolet Guarantee

摘要: 针对《公司法》第十六条第一款，许多观点认为应当基于《合同法》第五十条的“权限”做出解释，认为其系对公司代表权限的法定限制，推定相对人有应当知悉的义务，再以相对人是否尽到审查义务来判定担保合同效力。这样认定其实忽略了《公司法》对公司代表权限法定限制和意定限制的界分问题。本文认为该款并未直接规定公司代表的权限范围，而是交由董事会或股东(大)会规定，仅仅只是区分于意定限制的一种间接法定限制，而非直接法定限制。直接法定限制应当是《公司法》对代表权限做出的，仅依据《公司法》规定，相对人就能知悉的，具有确定性的客观限制。对于《公司法》所做出的权限限制的限制程度不同，应当分为直接法定限制、间接法定限制和意定限制的三元权限限制区分，并分别对应不同的相对人善意的判定标准和举证责任承担标准。

Abstract: In response to the first paragraph of Article 16 of the “Company Law”, many views hold that the interpretation should be based on the “authority” of Article 50 of the “Contract Law”. The validity of the guaranteed contract is determined based on whether the counterparty has fulfilled the obligation of review. Such a determination actually ignores the issue of the demarcation between statutory and intentional restrictions on the authority of company representatives in the Company Law. This article believes that this paragraph does not directly stipulate the scope of authority of company representatives, but is left to the board of directors or the shareholders (general meeting) to stipulate, which is only an indirect statutory restriction, not a direct statutory restriction, which is distinguished from the intended restriction. The direct statutory restriction should be a definite objective restriction made by the “Company Law” on the authority of the representative, which can only be known by the counterparty according to the “Company Law”. For the different degrees of restriction of authority restrictions made by the “Company Law”, they should be divided into three categories: direct legal restrictions, indirect legal restrictions and intentional restrictions, and should correspond to different standards for determining the good faith of the counterparty and the burden of proof.