一人公司财产独立证明法理重述及裁判规则审思  

Restatement of Legal Theory of Independent Proof of Single-Member Company Property and Review of Adjudication Rules

作　　者：吴佳悦 郭泽喆 Wu Jiayue;Guo Zezhe

机构地区：[1]福建省厦门市思明区人民法院民二庭

出　　处：《厦门大学法律评论》2024年第2期137-152,共16页Xiamen University Law Review

摘　　要：一人公司财产独立证明(《公司法》第63条)标准长期存在分歧,在规范困境与认知困境双重作用下,法官对司法审计过度依赖。上述分歧与困境,是不同法官在司法制度、公司制度、证据制度、司法鉴定制度等方面的价值取向差异在个案处理中的具体表现。由于司法实践渐以严苛证明标准为主流,涉诉一人公司人格否定概率畸高,一人公司的制度价值遭受质疑,《公司法》第六次修订中立法者对第63条的存废产生摇摆。理想的一人公司财产独立证明裁判规则,应建构于多元价值的兼顾和平衡之上:首先,第63条作为特殊规则单独适用,不受第20条第3款项下主观恶意和损害结果要件约束;其次,财务会计报告是证明公司财产流向最为适当的证据形态,应当围绕年度审计义务展开证据资格审查;再次,适格证据的证明力大小双向受制于形式和内容,专项司法审计报告的证明力最高;最后,一人公司履行年度审计义务的可考虑举证责任适当减轻并部分转移,亦可考虑将一人公司股东的连带清偿责任解释为限定于财产混同范围之内。鉴于第63条具有独特价值,立法上不应摒弃,而应加以改造完善。年度审计义务(《公司法》第62条)若附加专项审计内容,则制度功效将有效激活。The standard of independent proof of single-member company property(Article 63 of the Company Law)has long been different,and under the dual role of normative dilemma and cognitive dilemma,judges over-rely on judicial audit.The above differences and dilemmas are the concrete manifestation of the difference in the value orientation of different judges in the judicial system,the company system,the evidence system and the judicial appraisal system in the case handling.Because the judicial practice is gradually taking the strict proof standard as the mainstream,the probability of denying the personality of the single-member company involved in the lawsuit is extremely high,and the institutional value of the single-member company is questioned.In the sixth amendment of the Company Law,the legislator has wavering on the survival or abolition of Article 63.The ideal single-member company property independent proof adjudication rule should be built on the consideration and balance of multiple values:first,Article 63 is applied separately as a special rule,and is not subject to the subjective malice and damage result requirements under Article 20 paragraph 3;secondly,the financial accounting report is the most appropriate form of evidence to prove the direction of the company's property,and the qualification examination of evidence should be carried out around the annual audit obligation.In addition,the probative power of qualified evidence is subject to both form and content,and the probative power of special judicial audit report is the highest.Finally,the burden of proof for a singlemember company to perform the annual audit obligation can be appropriately reduced and partially transferred,and the joint and several liability of the shareholders of a single-member company can also be interpreted as limited to the scope of property confusion.In view of the unique value of Article 63,legislation should not be abandoned,but should be improved.Annual audit obligations(Article 62 of the Company Law)If special audit content i

关 键 词：一人公司 《公司法》第63条 财产独立 公司人格否认 

分 类 号：D922.291.91[政治法律—经济法学]