2013年6月刊？June 2013

编者按：本刊旨在报道与中国有关的跨境贸易与投资的最新动态与我们的实务经验，但本刊不可替代个案的正式法律意见。您若重复收到本刊或者要订阅、退订或进一步了解本刊的内容，请与吉林省律师协会对外投资与贸易法律专业委员会的有关律师联系。

Editor's note: the purpose of this publication is to report the mostrecent developments in the field of cross-border trade and investment inconnection with China, as well as our practical experience therein. However,this publication should not be treated as a substitute for a formal legalopinion in individual cases. If you have received this publication more thanonce, or would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to this publication, or followup on any issues raised in this publication, please be in contact with thelawyer you usually deal with at Professional Committee of Foreign Investmentand Trade of Jilin Province Lawyers Association.

目录

CONTENTS

[1]  对最高人民法院15号指导性案例的理解和思考

Some Thoughts and Understandings on the 15th Guiding Case of the SupremeCourt of the People's Republic of China

[2]中国合同法概要

Outline to the Contract Law of CHINA

[3]缔约中的表见代理权

The apparent authority during concluding contracts

[4]中国外商投资法资讯速递

China FDI Law Newsflash

SomeThoughts and Understandings on the 15th Guiding Case of the Supreme Court ofthe People's Republic of China

Xiaoyan Cheng

Shareholders may abuse the company's independent status, this will lead to the confusion of corporate personality, which will result to joint and several liability undertook by relevant affiliated companies. Company Law of the People's Republic of China has made clearly provision of this problem. But how to determine the corporate personality confusion in judicial practice is pretty vague. The Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China has published the 15th Guiding Case on 31th January, 2013, this provides a good guidance to the civil subjects and the courts of all different levels. The writer will introduce the case briefly as follows:

Basic facts:

Xugong Group Construction Machinery Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XugongMachinery Company) claimed that Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company) was inpayment arrears, and there existed confusion of corporate personalities amongChengdu Chuanjiao Engineering Machinery Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to asChuanjiao Machinery Company), Sichuan Ruilu Construction Engineering Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Ruilu Company), and Chuanjiao Industry and TradeCompany; and Mr. Yongli Wang’s (the actual controller of the three companies)personal assets are mixed together with the three companies’. So they allshould bear joint and several liability for the payment of the debts. Theplaintiff asked the court to rule: Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company pay thedebts RMB 10,906,405.71 yuan and the interests; Chuanjiao Machinery Company,Ruilu Company and Mr. Yongli Wang should bear jointand several liability for the payment mentioned above.

Court decisions:

The Intermediate People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, made acivil judgment [(2009) Xu Min Er Chu Zi No. 0065] on 10th April, 2011: firstly,Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company should pay RMB 10916405.71 yuan and theinterests to Xugong Machinery Company within 10 days when the judgment comeinto force; secondly, Chuanjiao Machinery Company and Ruilu Company bear jointand several liability for the above debts; thirdly, the court rejected otherclaims of Xugong Machinery Company.

When the judgment was pronounced, Chuanjiao Machinery Company and RuiluCompany appealed, the Supreme People's Court of Jiangsu Province made the finaljudgment [（2011） Su Shang Zhong Zi No.0107],rejected the appeal, and sustained the original judgment.

Judgment reasons and thejurisprudential basis:

The focus of dispute of the case was: whether the corporate personalitiesof Chuanjiao Machinery Company, Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company and RuiluCompany are confused, whether the affiliated companies should bear joint andseveral liability for the repayment of the debts.

1. Whether personalityconfusion existed.

The court found outthe following facts through the trial: the three companies mentioned above areaffiliated companies, certain elements such as employees, business and assetswere mixed together, details are as below:

Firstly, the employeeswere mixed among the three companies. The manager、financial manager、accountant、industry and commerce clerk were all the same in thethree companies, the situation was the same among other administrators.

Secondly, thebusinesses were mixed among the three companies. The threecompanies were all involved in engineering and machinery, they used the samesales brochure and deal agreement.

Thirdly, the assetswere mixed among the three companies. The three companies used the same balanceaccount which were all using Mr. Yongli Wang’s signature as payment authority,the allocation of assets could not be discerned anymore.

Therefore, the courtbelieved that, employees, businesses, assets, as the characters of independentpersonalities, had been mixed together, this led to the confusion of theirassets,  they had lost their independentpersonalities, constituted personality confusion.

2. Whether the affiliatedcompanies should bear joint and several liabilities.

The court believedthat, independent personalities were the premises for the companies to enjoyindependent liabilities. The assets of companies were the guarantees for themto enjoy independent liabilities. When the affiliated companies’ assets aremixed, they lost their independent personalities and the basis of enjoyingliabilities independently. So the court made a decision: Chuanjiao MachineryCompany and Ruilu Company bear joint and several liability according to Article20 of Company Law of the People's Republic of China, “shareholders by abusingshareholders' rights shall be liable for compensation where any of theshareholders of a company evades the payment of debts and seriously damages theinterests of any creditor of the company by abusing the company's independentstatus as a legal person or the limited liability of shareholders, it shallbear several and joint liability for the debts of the company” .

Revelations and warnings:

The practice of setting up affiliated corporations for scattering risks orbidding is very common in legal practice. So it is very important for companiesto set up legal corporate governance structure, to distinguish employees,business and assets clearly to avoid confusion of personalities among theaffiliated companies. This essay tries to draw the attention of the companiesby introducing the case mentioned above: on the one hand the creditors maybroaden their mentality while realizing their creditor’s right; on the otherhand, the debtors may reduce their risks of taking jointand several liabilities by acknowledging therelative laws.  

对最高人民法院15号指导性案例的理解和思考

程晓燕

关于公司股东滥用公司法人独立地位，造成公司人格混同问题而引发的关联公司之间承担连带责任的相关法律问题，我国公司法已经做出明确规定。但司法实践中对如何认定公司人格混同，则长期存在模糊认识。最高人民法院于2013年1月31日公布的第15号指导案例，对于民事法律主体从事经营活动，以及法院依法审理类似案件提供了非常好的指导意见。笔者特将此案例简要介绍如下：

最高人民法院指导案例15号：徐工集团工程机械股份有限公司诉成都川交工贸有限责任公司等买卖合同纠纷案

基本案情：

原告徐工集团工程机械股份有限公司（以下简称徐工机械公司）诉称：成都川交工贸有限责任公司（以下简称川交工贸公司）拖欠其货款未付，而成都川交工程机械有限责任公司（以下简称川交机械公司）、四川瑞路建设工程有限公司（以下简称瑞路公司）与川交工贸公司人格混同，三个公司实际控制人王永礼以及川交工贸公司股东等人的个人资产与公司资产混同，均应承担连带清偿责任。请求判令：川交工贸公司支付所欠货款10916405.71元及利息；川交机械公司、瑞路公司及王永礼等个人对上述债务承担连带清偿责任。

裁判结果：

江苏省徐州市中级人民法院于2011年4月10日作出（2009）徐民二初字第0065号民事判决：一、川交工贸公司于判决生效后10日内向徐工机械公司支付货款10511710.71元及逾期付款利息；二、川交机械公司、瑞路公司对川交工贸公司的上述债务承担连带清偿责任；三、驳回徐工机械公司对王永礼等公司股东的诉讼请求。

宣判后，川交机械公司、瑞路公司提起上诉，江苏省高级人民法院于2011年10月19日作出（2011）苏商终字第0107号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。

裁判理由及法理基础：

本案争议焦点为川交机械公司、瑞路公司与川交工贸公司是否人格混同，应否对川交工贸公司的债务承担连带清偿责任。

一、是否构成人格混同

法院经审理查明：三个公司互为关联公司，互相之间存在人员混同、业务混同、财产混同等三方面的混同，细节分别为：

一是三个公司人员混同。三个公司的经理、财务负责人、出纳会计、工商手续经办人均相同，其他管理人员亦存在交叉任职的情形。

二是三个公司业务混同。三个公司实际经营中均涉及工程机械相关业务，经销过程中存在共用销售手册、经销协议的情形；对外进行宣传时信息混同。

三是三个公司财务混同。三个公司使用共同结算账户，以王永礼的签字作为具体用款依据，对其中的资金及支配无法证明已作区分。

因此，法院认为三个公司之间表征人格的因素（人员、业务、财务等）高度混同，导致各自财产无法区分，已丧失独立人格，构成人格混同。

二、是否应当承担连带责任

审理法院认为，公司人格独立是其作为法人独立承担责任的前提。而公司财产是公司独立承担责任的物质保证，公司的独立人格也突出表现在财产的独立上。当关联公司的财产无法区分，丧失独立人格时，就丧失了独立承担责任的基础。故审理法院依据《中华人民共和国公司法》（以下简称《公司法》）第二十条第三款规定：“公司股东滥用公司法人独立地位和股东有限责任，逃避债务，严重损害公司债权人利益的，应当对公司债务承担连带责任。”判决川交机械公司、瑞路公司对川交工贸公司的债务应当承担连带清偿责任。

启示与警示：

在我国目前的司法实践中，企业经营过程中为实现诸如分散风险、参与招投标等目的而成立关联公司的做法非常普遍。因此在经营过程中，通过建立合法的企业法人治理机构，正确区分各个关联公司人员、业务和财务，避免在关联公司之间因上述表征人格独立的因素上的高度混同就显得尤为重要。本文力求通过对上述指导案例的介绍，引起企业的高度关注:一方面可使债权人在实现债权时能拓宽思路，另一方面也可使债务人避免因不懂法律的相关规定而导致其他无辜关联公司承担连带责任的局面出现。

XiaoyanCheng

Senior Partner of Dacheng Law Offices Changchun Office

Tel: +86-431-88562418    

CellPhone: +86-13596159888

Fax: +86-431-88585581

E-mail:xiaoyan.cheng@dachenglaw.com

EducationExperiences

l       2004-2008 PhD      Jilin University Schoolof Law

l       1999-2002  Master    Jilin University School of Law

l       1986-1990  LLB     Jilin University School of Law

l       1998-1999 SOAS    London University ,StephensonHarwood Law Firm

PracticeAreas:

l      Foreign direct investment

l      Merger &Acquisition and Reorganization

l      Corporate Governance & Risk Control

l      International Technical Transformation

l      International Business

l      Litigation and Arbitration

Ms. Cheng has advised and representedclients in a broad range of industries, including investment, finance,insurance, IT, manufacturing, auto, retail, telecommunications, chemical, hotelmanagement, culture and education, publishing and media.

Ms. Cheng has represented numerous clientsin commercial litigation before the Chinese courts and in arbitration beforethe Arbitration Commission, with a particular emphasis on disputes concerning mergersand acquisitions, Sino-foreign joint ventures, real estate, construction andemployment, as well as shareholder and derivatives disputes.

With extensive experience in both the RiskControl and Investment & Equity Trading in litigious and non-litigiouslegal work, Ms. Cheng can help clients solve their problems in an accurate,effective and economic manner.

WorkingLanguages: Chinese andEnglish, Mr. Deng can work in English skillfully.

程晓燕

北京大成（长春）律师事务所  高级合伙人  

电话：+86-431-88562418

手机：+86-13596159888

传真：+86-431-88585581

电邮：xiaoyan.cheng@dachenglaw.com

教育背景：

l       2004-2008 吉林大学法学院 民商法博士

l       1999-2002 吉林大学法学院 民商法硕士

l       1986-1990 吉林大学法律系 国际法学士

l       1998-1999 英国伦敦大学亚非学院、StephensonHarwood Law Firm

专业领域：

？       外商直接投资  

？       并购与重组  

？       公司治理、企业风险防范                  

？       国际技术转让、许可    

？       国际商务

？       涉外诉讼与仲裁

程律师的客户领域涉及投资、金融、保险、IT、制造、汽车、零售、电信、化工、文化教育、出版传媒等行业。

程律师曾代理众多客户在中国法院及仲裁委员会进行商业诉讼与仲裁，特别是并购、中外合资纠纷、公司股权纠纷、解散、清算以及合同方面的纠纷。

程律师在企业风险控制、投融资等非诉及诉讼仲裁方面拥有丰富的经验，能够帮助客户准确、有效且经济地解决问题。

工作语言：中文、英文，程律师可以熟练使用英文工作。