将夫妻公司穿透识别为实质一人公司的裁判思维之争  

The Debate over the Adjudication Philosophy of Identification of the Matrimonial Company as a Substantial One-Person Company

作　　者：刘俊海[1] LIU Junhai

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《上海政法学院学报(法治论丛)》2025年第1期32-52,共21页Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science & Law(The Rule of Law Forum)

基　　金：2024年度全国工商联重点课题“法治民企课题研究”的阶段性研究成果,项目编号:2024K20310。

摘　　要：夫妻公司是民营经济发展中的主力军。夫妻创业离不开稳定、透明、公平与可预期的法治化营商环境。围绕夫妻公司是否为实质一人公司,存在同案不同判现象。有些判例对夫妻股东无条件地套用自证清白的证据规则,增加了夫妻投资与公司治理风险,不利于高质量发展。为提振投资信心,必须坚持外观主义优位原则,尊重股权结构的公示公信效力,反对恣意的实质穿透主义,划清夫妻共同财产与股东独立人格之间的法律边界,抛弃夫妻通谋失信推定说,鼓励夫妻股东夫妻平等共治,共襄盛举。夫妻公司就是二人公司,并非一人公司或实质一人公司。鉴于“实质一人公司”并非严谨法律概念,不宜被代入《公司法》第23条第3款中的一人公司范畴。既然《公司法》第23条第1款在规制夫妻公司时不存在法律漏洞,法官无须也不应牵强附会地对其准用该法第23条第3款。不将夫妻公司视为实质一人公司,不等于纵容夫妻股东滥用股东有限责任原则与公司法律人格。倘若夫妻公司存在人格严重混同或股权资本显著不足等情形,债权人有权依据《公司法》第23条第1款为股东多元化公司设计的一般法律规则,诉请法院揭开公司面纱,但无权请求法院类推适用第23条第3款专为一人公司设计的举证责任倒置规则。信息占有与举证责任成正比应成为一条证据铁律。Matrimonial companies are the main force in the private economy.Matrimonial entrepreneurship relies on a stable,transparent,fair and predictable business environment based on the rule of law.There are different judgments in the same cases as to whether the matrimonial company is a substantial one-person company.Some precedents unconditionally apply the rules of evidence for selfproof of innocence to husband-and-wife shareholders,which increases the risk of investment and corporate governance,which is not conducive to high-quality development.In order to boost investment confidence,it is necessary to prioritize the ostensibility,respect the publicity and credibility of the shareholding structure,oppose arbitrary doctrine of substance-over-form,differentiating the matrimonial property and the independent personalities of shareholders,abandon the presumption of matrimonial conspiracy and dishonesty,and encourage them to participate in corporate governance.A matrimonial company is a two-person company,not a one-person company or a substantial one-person company.“Substantial oneperson company”is not a strict legal concept and should not be substituted into the category of a oneperson company under Article 23,Paragraph 3 of the Company Law.Since Article 23,Paragraph 1,of the Companies Act does not have a legal loophole in the regulation of matrimonial companies,judges need not and should not apply Article 23,Paragraph 3 of the act to them.Not treating a matrimonial company as a substantial one-person company does not mean conniving at the abuse of the principle of limited liability of shareholders and the legal personality of the company by the matrimonial shareholders.If there is a serious confusion of personalities or a significant undercapitalization in the matrimonial companies,the creditor has the right to apply to the court to lift the corporate veil under the general legal rule designed for companies with diversified shareholders in Article 23,Paragraph 1 of the Company Law,but may not request the court to a

关 键 词：实质一人公司 外观主义 实质主义 夫妻共同财产 股东独立人格 举证责任倒置 

分 类 号：DF[政治法律—法学]