浙江利群律师事务所 王健律师

【案情】

2005年11月，徐某、董某、江某与杨某、林某出资设立台州某驾驶培训有限公司。公司注册资本50万元，杨某系执行董事，其中徐某出资15万元，占30%股权，董某与江某系夫妻关系各出资3.75万元，各占公司7.5%股权，杨某与林某系夫妻关系各出资13.75万元，各占公司27.5%股权，徐某占公司30%股权。公司为购买车辆、租用场地、建造工作用房及添置股东资产需要资金325万元，按照股份分摊，徐某应出资97.5万元，董某与江某应出资48.75万元，杨某与林某应出资178.5万元。徐某、董某及江某已按照约定出资到位，但杨某与林某未按约出资，尚有101.652175万元未到位。因杨某与林某没有能力出资，2007年4月30日，经公司财务核算，并经过股东同意，按照债转股对公司股东的股权进行调整，形成了股东产权分割协议，调整后，徐某占公司52%股权，董某与江某各占14%股权，杨某与林某各占10%股权。债转股后，徐某等三股东多次催促杨某与林某到工商行政管理部门办理股东股权变更手续，但杨某与林某一直推托至今未办理，诉至法院要求确认徐某占公司52%股权、董某与江某占公司14%股权、杨某与林某占公司10%股权。

【审判】

 一审法院审理认为：杨某、林某虽未按约定足额投资，其对公司实际投资770978.25元，超出了认缴的出资额，但杨某、林某不欠公司投资款1016521元。因为杨某、林某未按约定投资，违反了诚实信用原则，股东可以重新调整公司股东股权，但不得损害其他股东的合法权益。调整公司股东股权属于修改公司章程，股东必须按照公司章程规定召开股东会。杨某、徐某、董某在重新调整公司股东股权时，未召开由全体股东参加的股东会，所采用的股权分配计算方法不当，损害了股东林某的合法权益，其股东产权分割协议未经林某签名认可，因此该协议未依法成立。法院判决：驳回徐某、董某、江某的诉讼请求。

一审宣判后，徐某等人不服判决提起上诉。二审法院认为，股东产权分割协议有股东徐某、董某、杨某的亲笔签字，签字各方股东对此均予以认可。该协议首部载明：“股东杨某与林某为夫妻关系，占公司55%股权，出资额、借款及欠款视为同一股东，股东董某与江某为夫妻关系，占公司15%股权，出资额及借款视为同一股东。对此理解为：该协议约定股东杨某与林某为同一股东，股东董某与江某为同一股东，从夫妻对外民事法律行为上分析，具有主体的一致性、意思表示的一致性和效力归属的同一性。虽该协议属股权分割协议，但就其内容看，对内属股东之间股权变更、划分权责利的协议，对外仍然以公司的名义从事民事活动，不影响国家、集体和他人的合法权益，因此该协议应当认定有效，其中丈夫杨某在协议中的签字所产生的权利义务与妻子林某共同享有和承担，其中董某在协议中的签字所产生的权利义务与妻子江某共同享有和承担，据此，二审法院撤销一审法院的民事判决，确认徐某占公司52%股权，董某、江某各占14%股权，杨某、林某各占10%股权。

二审法院判决后，林某通过申诉，市人民检察院提请省检察院抗诉，台州中级人民法院再审认为，本案是股东之间相互转让股权，不存在向股东以外的其他人转让股权的情形，有关股东会决议程序的规定不适合本案，林某是否出席股东会与本案股权转让行为的效力之间没有必然的因果关系。就本案股东产权分割等协议本身内容看，杨某是代表夫妻二人在处分权利，董某也存在相同情形。徐某、董某、江某认为杨某的处分行为构成表见代理，并已提供相应的证据证明，对于徐某等人的意见予以采纳。况且，公司成立以后，林某曾参与公司管理，但从未实际参加过股东会，杨某、林某夫妻二人、董某、江某夫妻二人的股东权力均分别由杨某与董某行驶，这足以使公司其他股东成员相信杨某有资格代理林某处理有关涉及股权的事务。所以本案股东产权分割协议中的股权转让内容合法有效，抗诉机关抗诉理由不成立，本案二审法院判决处理结果正确，应当予以维持。

【评析】

本案的争议焦点：杨某在《股东产权分割协议》上签字，能否代表其妻子林某签字？对林某是否具有法律上的约束力？

一、公司股权纠纷不仅仅适用公司法调整，还应当受其他法律调整。

本案并不像通常的公司股东间纠纷，本案特殊之处在于，股东杨某与股东林某系夫妻关系，而杨某又是执行董事，这种特殊的、特定的身份关系导致万里公司内部治理不同于一般的有限责任公司，杨某、林某二人的关系相对于第三人而言是非常密切的，所以本案不仅仅适用我国公司法的规定，还应当适用民法通则若干问题意见第89条、婚姻法若干问题的解释（一）第十七条第二款、以及合同法的相关规定。

二、杨某行为构成表见代理。

本案股东杨某与股东林某系夫妻关系。根据公司法的规定，夫妻设立公司成为公司股东，应当以各自所有的财产作为注册资本，并各自承担相应的责任。据此，杨某和林某在公司注册登记时应当提交财产分割证明。但是，本案杨某和林某在设立公司登记时并未进行财产分割，故应当认定杨某和林某是以夫妻共同共有财产出资而成为公司股东。杨某和林某用夫妻共同共有财产出资，在夫妻关系存续期间，丈夫或者妻子的公司股份是双方共同共有的财产，夫妻作为共同共有人，对共有财产享有平等的占有、使用、收益和处分的权利。最高院《关于适用<婚姻法>若干问题的解释（一）第十七条第二款规定：“夫或妻非因日常生活需要对夫妻共同财产做重要处理决定，夫妻双方应当平等协商，取得一致意见。他人有理由相信其为夫妻双方共同意思表示的，另一方不得以不同意或不知道为由对抗善意第三人。”公司对任何重大事项的决定，其林某一直由其丈夫杨某代表签字，江某由其丈夫董某代表签字，这也是公司成立后一贯的操作模式，而且徐某等人也向法院提供了2006年3月11日“董事会决议”、2005年11月16日至2006年5月10日“万里驾校教练保证金明细”、以及本案的《股东产权分割协议》，都足以证明该事实，而且没有任何证据可以反证，万里公司成立以来，杨某签字是不能代表林某签字的，林某对杨某代表其签字也一直没有提出过异议。其他股东是完全充分有理由相信杨某在《股东产权分割协议》上的签字是他们夫妻双方共同意思的表示。根据最高院的上述司法解释，林某不得以不同意或不知道为由来否定其丈夫杨某的签字，并因此来对抗公司其他善意股东。根据《合同法》第49条规定，杨某的行为是一种表见代理行为，其代理行为有效，对林某具有法律上的约束力。

Lawyer Wang Jian from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

【Case details】

In November 2005, Xu, Dong, Jiang, Yang, and Lin invested to establish Taizhou Driving Training Co., Ltd. The registered capital of the company is 500000 yuan. Yang is an executive director, of which Xu contributes 150000 yuan, accounting for 30% of the company's equity. Dong and Jiang each contribute 37500 yuan, accounting for 7.5% of the company's equity. Yang and Lin each contribute 137500 yuan, accounting for 27.5% of the company's equity. Xu each holds 30% of the company's equity. The company needs a capital of 3.25 million yuan to purchase vehicles, rent premises, build working rooms, and add shareholder assets. According to share allocation, Xu should contribute 975000 yuan, Dong and Jiang should contribute 487500 yuan, and Yang and Lin should contribute 1.785 million yuan. Xu, Dong, and Jiang have already made the agreed capital contributions, but Yang and Lin have not made the agreed capital contributions, and there is still 1016521.75 million yuan that has not been made. Due to the inability of Yang and Lin to make capital contributions, on April 30, 2007, after financial accounting and shareholder approval, the equity of the company's shareholders was adjusted according to the debt to equity swap agreement, forming a shareholder equity split agreement. After the adjustment, Xu held 52% of the company's equity, Dong and Jiang each held 14% of the company's equity, and Yang and Lin each held 10% of the company's equity. After the debt to equity swap, Xu and three other shareholders repeatedly urged Yang and Lin to go to the administrative department for industry and commerce to handle the shareholder equity change procedures. However, Yang and Lin have been pleading with the court to confirm that Xu holds 52% of the company's equity, Dong and Jiang hold 14% of the company's equity, and Yang and Lin hold 10% of the company's equity.

【Trial】

The first instance court held that although Yang and Lin did not invest in full as agreed, their actual investment in the company was 770978.25 yuan, exceeding the subscribed capital contribution. However, Yang and Lin did not owe the company an investment of 1016521 yuan. Due to Yang and Lin's failure to invest as agreed, which violates the principle of good faith, shareholders can readjust the company's shareholder equity, but must not harm the legitimate rights and interests of other shareholders. Adjusting the shareholders' equity of the company belongs to modifying the company's articles of association, and shareholders must convene a shareholders' meeting in accordance with the provisions of the company's articles of association. Yang, Xu, and Dong did not hold a shareholders' meeting attended by all shareholders when readjusting the company's shareholder equity. The improper calculation method for equity distribution damaged the legitimate rights and interests of shareholder Lin. The shareholder equity division agreement was not signed and recognized by Lin, so the agreement was not established in accordance with the law. Court judgment: Reject the litigation claims of Xu, Dong, and Jiang.

After the first instance verdict, Xu and others appealed against the verdict. The second instance court held that the shareholder equity division agreement was personally signed by shareholders Xu, Dong, and Yang, and all shareholders who signed the agreement recognized it. The first part of this agreement states: Shareholders Yang and Lin are husband and wife, accounting for 55% of the company's equity. The amount of capital contribution, loans, and debts are considered the same shareholder, while shareholders Dong and Jiang are husband and wife, accounting for 15% of the company's equity. The amount of capital contribution and loans are considered the same shareholder. This is understood as follows: the agreement stipulates that shareholders Yang and Lin are the same shareholder, and shareholders Dong and Jiang are the same shareholder. From the perspective of the couple's external civil legal behavior, it has consistency and meaning of the subject The consistency of representation and the identity of effectiveness attribution. Although this agreement belongs to the equity division agreement, in terms of its content, the agreement on the change of equity and the division of rights, responsibilities, and interests between internal shareholders still engages in civil activities in the name of the company externally, without affecting the legitimate rights and interests of the state, collective, and others. Therefore, this agreement should be deemed valid, and the rights and obligations arising from the signature of husband Yang in the agreement shall be jointly enjoyed and borne by wife Lin, The rights and obligations arising from Dong's signature in the agreement are jointly enjoyed and borne by his wife Jiang. Therefore, the second instance court revoked the civil judgment of the first instance court, confirming that Xu holds 52% of the company's equity, Dong and Jiang each hold 14% of the company's equity, and Yang and Lin each hold 10% of the company's equity.

After the judgment of the court of second instance, Lin appealed and the Municipal People's Procuratorate submitted a protest to the Provincial People's Procuratorate. The Intermediate people's court of Taizhou held a retrial that the case was a mutual transfer of equity between shareholders, and there was no transfer of equity to anyone other than shareholders. The provisions on the agenda of the shareholders' meeting were not suitable for the case. There was no necessary causal relationship between whether Lin attended the shareholders' meeting and the effectiveness of the equity transfer in the case. From the content of the agreement on the division of shareholder property rights in this case, Yang represents the couple in disposing of their rights, and Dong also has the same situation. Mr. Xu, Mr. Dong and Mr. Jiang believed that Mr. Yang's punishment constituted Apparent authority, and provided corresponding evidence to prove that they accepted the opinions of Mr. Xu and others. Moreover, after the establishment of the company, Lin participated in the management of the company, but never actually participated in the shareholders' meeting. The shareholder rights of Yang, Lin and his wife, Dong, and Jiang were respectively exercised by Yang and Dong, which is enough to convince other shareholders of the company that Yang is qualified to represent Lin in matters related to equity. Therefore, the equity transfer content in the shareholders' equity division agreement in this case is legal and valid, and the reasons for the protest by the protest authority are not valid. The judgment of the second instance court in this case is correct and should be upheld.

【Evaluation and Analysis】

The focus of controversy in this case: Can Yang sign the "Shareholders' Property Division Agreement" on behalf of his wife Lin? Is it legally binding on Lin?

1. Corporate equity disputes should not only be governed by the Company Law, but also by other laws.

This case is not like a typical dispute between shareholders of a company. The uniqueness of this case lies in the fact that shareholder Yang and shareholder Lin have a marital relationship, and Yang is also an executive director. This special and specific identity relationship results in the internal governance of Wanli Company being different from that of a general limited liability company. The relationship between Yang and Lin is very close compared to a third party, so this case is not only applicable to the provisions of China's Company Law, Article 89 of the Opinions on Several Issues of the General Principles of Civil Law, Article 17 (2) of the Interpretation of Several Issues of Marriage Law, and relevant provisions of Contract Law should also be applied.

2. Yang's behavior constitutes Apparent authority.

The shareholder Yang and the shareholder Lin in this case are married. According to the provisions of the Company Law, when a husband and wife establish a company and become shareholders of the company, they should use their respective property as their registered capital and bear corresponding responsibilities. Based on this, Yang and Lin should submit a property division certificate when registering the company. However, in this case, Yang and Lin did not undergo property division during the registration of the establishment of the company, so it should be determined that Yang and Lin became shareholders of the company through their joint property contributions. Yang and Lin jointly contribute to the joint property of the husband and wife. During the existence of the marital relationship, the company shares of the husband or wife are jointly owned by both parties. As co owners, the husband and wife have equal rights to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of the jointly owned property. Article 17 (2) of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law by the Supreme People's Court stipulates: "If a husband or wife makes important decisions regarding the joint property of the husband and wife other than for the purpose of daily life, both parties shall negotiate on an equal basis and reach a consensus. If others have reason to believe that it is a joint intention expressed by both parties, the other party shall not oppose a bona fide third party on the grounds of disagreement or lack of knowledge The company's decisions on any major matters have been signed by Lin, represented by her husband Yang, and Jiang, represented by her husband Dong. This is also a consistent operating model since the company's establishment. Xu and others have also provided the court with the "Board Resolution" of March 11, 2006, the "Details of the Coach Deposit of Wanli Driving School" from November 16, 2005 to May 10, 2006, and the "Shareholders' Equity Division Agreement" in this case, All are sufficient to prove this fact, and there is no evidence to prove it. Since the establishment of Wanli Company, Yang's signature cannot represent Lin's signature, and Lin has never raised any objections to Yang's signature on his behalf. The other shareholders have full reason to believe that Yang's signature on the Shareholders' Equity Division Agreement is a joint expression of their spouses' intentions. According to the above judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, Lin must not deny the signature of her husband Yang on the grounds of disagreement or lack of knowledge, and therefore oppose other bona fide shareholders of the company. According to Article 49 of the Contract Law, Yang's act is a kind of Apparent authority act, which is effective and legally binding on Lin.