证券虚假陈述中监事民事责任研究——兼论《证券法》第85条的适用  

Research on the Civil Liability of Supervisors in False Statements of Securities——on the application of Article 85 of the Securities Law

作　　者：曹兴权 洪喜琪 CAO Xing-quan;HONG Xi-qi

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学民商法学院

出　　处：《北方法学》2021年第5期38-50,共13页Northern Legal Science

基　　金：重庆市社会科学规划重点项目“民法典习惯法源规范的实施”(2020ZDFX06);2020年中国法学会部级法学研究课题后期资助项目“董事义务之检视”[CLS(2020)HQZZ03]的研究成果。

摘　　要：《证券法》第85条基于第82条对监事保证职责的隐性预设而规定证券虚假陈述中监事承担连带赔偿责任。囿于我国公司治理结构的内生性罅漏,监事面临监督不能、监督无效的困境,其能力地位与法律预设存在明显落差,由此引发对监事承担民事责任正当性的追问。虽然基于信义义务及法定保证义务,这一正当性得以证立,但关于监事连带责任的要求可能陷入权责不一的诘难。为此,宜在理性确定监事过错认定标准、限制连带责任的适用情形以及结合过错程度与原因力程度而理性确定责任范围等方面着力解释《证券法》第85条。Article 85 of the Securities Law stipulates that the supervisors shall bear joint liability in the case of securities false statements based on the implicit assumption in Article 82 of the supervisor’s guaranty duty. Due to the inherent flaws in the corporate governance structure of our country, the supervisors are faced with the dilemma of inability to supervise and ineffectiveness of supervision, and there is a clear gap between their power status and the legal presupposition, which raises questions about the legitimacy of supervisors’ civil liability. Although this legitimacy can be justified based on fiduciary duty and statutory guarantee duty, the requirement of joint liability of supervisors may fall into controversy of powers and responsibilities. For this reason, it is advisable to interpret Article 85 of the Securities Law rationally in terms of rationally defining the criteria for determining the fault of supervisors, limiting the applicable circumstances of joint liability, and combining the degree of fault and the degree of causal power to rationally determine the scope of liability.

关 键 词：证券虚假陈述 监事民事责任 勤勉标准 连带责任 

分 类 号：DF438.7[政治法律—经济法学]