cciia.org.cn 2023-7-18 12:19:00 人民法院報
近日，北京市海淀區人民(min)法院審理(li)一(yi)起HPV疫苗(miao)采購糾紛案(an)，判決(jue)被(bei)告(gao)太和婦產醫(yi)院應向邁康公司(si)退還疫苗(miao)款460586元。
邁(mai)(mai)康公(gong)司(si)與太(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)院簽署《HPV疫苗(miao)服(fu)務(wu)協議》，約定邁(mai)(mai)康公(gong)司(si)從太(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)院采購(gou)100套HPV9價宮頸癌疫苗(miao)接種(zhong)服(fu)務(wu)套餐（每(mei)套疫苗(miao)3針）在邁(mai)(mai)康公(gong)司(si)平臺銷售，每(mei)套單價為5080元(yuan)，共(gong)計508000元(yuan)。邁(mai)(mai)康公(gong)司(si)依(yi)約向太(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)院的子公(gong)司(si)太(tai)(tai)和(he)乾承公(gong)司(si)支付508000元(yuan)，后太(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)院僅(jin)提(ti)供28套疫苗(miao)首針接種(zhong)服(fu)務(wu)，余72套無法提(ti)供。邁(mai)(mai)康公(gong)司(si)訴至法院，要求(qiu)確(que)認案涉(she)協議解除、太(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)院退還款(kuan)項460586元(yuan)、太(tai)(tai)和(he)乾承公(gong)司(si)共(gong)同（連帶）承擔460586元(yuan)。
邁(mai)康(kang)公司訴稱，太和(he)婦產醫(yi)(yi)院(yuan)是太和(he)乾承公司的(de)唯一股東。2022年6月30日(ri)，邁(mai)康(kang)公司向太和(he)婦產醫(yi)(yi)院(yuan)發(fa)出《退(tui)款通(tong)知書》未獲(huo)回復，故起(qi)訴請求確認(ren)邁(mai)康(kang)公司和(he)太和(he)婦產醫(yi)(yi)院(yuan)簽署的(de)HPV疫苗服務協議于2022年7月11日(ri)解除。
被(bei)告(gao)太和(he)婦產(chan)醫(yi)院辯稱，醫(yi)院與(yu)邁(mai)康公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)存在案涉合同(tong)關(guan)系，太和(he)婦產(chan)醫(yi)院無法履行(xing)合同(tong)，同(tong)意(yi)協議在2022年(nian)7月(yue)11日(ri)解除，且應向邁(mai)康公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)退還已支付(fu)的(de)款項460586元。邁(mai)康公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)打款時，太和(he)婦產(chan)醫(yi)院的(de)賬戶被(bei)其他訴訟凍結了，故打款到太和(he)乾(qian)承(cheng)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)賬戶。不同(tong)意(yi)太和(he)乾(qian)承(cheng)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)就邁(mai)康公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)主張款項460586元承(cheng)擔連帶責任。
被告(gao)太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)乾承(cheng)公司未到庭參加訴(su)訟，其提交書面意見稱邁康公司和(he)太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)(yi)院(yuan)簽訂協(xie)議期(qi)間，太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)(yi)院(yuan)的賬(zhang)戶處(chu)于凍結(jie)狀態，太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)(yi)院(yuan)委托太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)乾承(cheng)公司代收相關費用，協(xie)議中服務(wu)內容由太(tai)(tai)(tai)和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)(yi)(yi)院(yuan)提供。
法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)審理后認為，根據案涉合同(tong)(tong)約定，若太和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)院(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)無(wu)法(fa)提供首針接種服(fu)務，邁(mai)康公司(si)(si)有權單方終(zhong)止協議(yi)，并要求(qiu)退還未完成疫苗(miao)的(de)款項。太和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)院(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)于(yu)(yu)2022年6月1日(ri)停診，無(wu)法(fa)再(zai)履行合同(tong)(tong)義務。邁(mai)康公司(si)(si)于(yu)(yu)2022年6月30日(ri)向太和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)院(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)發出《退款通知書》并主張單方解(jie)(jie)除協議(yi)。太和(he)婦(fu)產(chan)醫(yi)院(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)在2022年7月11日(ri)收到《退款通知書》，同(tong)(tong)意(yi)案涉協議(yi)于(yu)(yu)2022年7月11日(ri)解(jie)(jie)除。
邁(mai)康(kang)(kang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)主張太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)就太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)應向其(qi)退(tui)還(huan)的款項(xiang)460586元承擔共同（連帶）清償責任，認(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)案涉合同中(zhong)約定太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)的收(shou)款賬(zhang)(zhang)戶系太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)的賬(zhang)(zhang)戶，二者存在(zai)(zai)混(hun)(hun)同。太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)稱(cheng)，當時(shi)其(qi)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)賬(zhang)(zhang)戶因(yin)訴(su)(su)訟被凍(dong)結，太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)認(ren)可(ke)(ke)因(yin)太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)賬(zhang)(zhang)戶處于凍(dong)結狀態而受委托代為(wei)(wei)(wei)收(shou)取相(xiang)關(guan)費用。邁(mai)康(kang)(kang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)在(zai)(zai)簽訂合同時(shi)認(ren)可(ke)(ke)該項(xiang)交(jiao)易安(an)排(pai)且將款項(xiang)支付至太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)賬(zhang)(zhang)戶。法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)認(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)，邁(mai)康(kang)(kang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)實(shi)為(wei)(wei)(wei)主張太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)和(he)(he)(he)太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)存在(zai)(zai)混(hun)(hun)同且應適用法(fa)人(ren)人(ren)格逆向否認(ren)，但并未舉證(zheng)證(zheng)明二者存在(zai)(zai)混(hun)(hun)同，也未證(zheng)明太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)是為(wei)(wei)(wei)了逃避債務(wu)才將資產(chan)轉移(yi)至太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)乾承公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)，并導致太(tai)和(he)(he)(he)婦產(chan)醫院(yuan)(yuan)自身(shen)償債能(neng)力不足且嚴重損害邁(mai)康(kang)(kang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)利益，故法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)對于邁(mai)康(kang)(kang)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)的該項(xiang)訴(su)(su)訟請求不予支持。
宣判后(hou)，各方當事人均未上訴，該判決現已生效。
（曾競 李紅輝）
■法官說法■
法人人格否認(ren)(ren)是(shi)在股東(dong)濫(lan)用(yong)有(you)限責任(ren)制度的(de)條件(jian)下，通過否認(ren)(ren)法人獨立人格，矯正股東(dong)、公司及債權人之間的(de)利益。法人人格否認(ren)(ren)包括縱向人格否認(ren)(ren)、橫向人格否認(ren)(ren)和(he)逆向人格否認(ren)(ren)。
鑒于(yu)案涉合同當事人對于(yu)合同的(de)履行、解除均無異議，本案爭議焦點問題系太和(he)乾承(cheng)公司(si)作為子公司(si)應否對其唯(wei)一股東(dong)太和(he)婦產醫院(yuan)的(de)案涉債務(wu)承(cheng)擔共同（連帶）清償責任。為此，需要明晰逆(ni)向人格否認的(de)適用條件和(he)舉證責任分配(pei)原則。
關于逆向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)目前尚缺乏(fa)明(ming)確的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)法律(lv)規定(ding)。相較于縱向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)，逆向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)一般系股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)債(zhai)權人(ren)(ren)起訴(su)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)及公(gong)司要求股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)償(chang)還債(zhai)務且公(gong)司為(wei)(wei)(wei)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)債(zhai)務承擔(dan)連(lian)帶責任。對于要求適(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)逆向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)訴(su)請不(bu)宜以(yi)缺乏(fa)法律(lv)依據(ju)為(wei)(wei)(wei)由駁回，應依據(ju)現行公(gong)司法第(di)二(er)十(shi)條第(di)三款(kuan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)規定(ding)判(pan)斷應否(fou)(fou)適(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)。其(qi)適(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)應滿足以(yi)下條件：一是(shi)(shi)公(gong)司股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)(yong)公(gong)司法人(ren)(ren)獨立地位和(he)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)有限責任；二(er)是(shi)(shi)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)(yong)行為(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)目的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)是(shi)(shi)為(wei)(wei)(wei)了逃避自(zi)(zi)身(shen)債(zhai)務；三是(shi)(shi)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)(yong)行為(wei)(wei)(wei)導(dao)致債(zhai)權人(ren)(ren)利益嚴(yan)重受損。逆向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)牽涉公(gong)司善意股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)以(yi)及公(gong)司債(zhai)權人(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)利益，故對其(qi)適(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)應采(cai)取(qu)審慎和(he)謙(qian)抑的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)態度(du)。如(ru)主(zhu)張適(shi)(shi)(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)逆向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)否(fou)(fou)認(ren)，股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)債(zhai)權人(ren)(ren)應當提供初步證(zheng)據(ju)證(zheng)明(ming)股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)存在諸如(ru)人(ren)(ren)格(ge)混(hun)同(tong)、過(guo)度(du)支配與控制、資本顯著不(bu)足等濫(lan)用(yong)(yong)(yong)行為(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)表征且該行為(wei)(wei)(wei)系為(wei)(wei)(wei)了逃避自(zi)(zi)身(shen)債(zhai)務等目的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)，導(dao)致股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)與公(gong)司人(ren)(ren)格(ge)混(hun)同(tong)，股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)喪失債(zhai)務清(qing)償(chang)能力并給股(gu)(gu)東(dong)(dong)(dong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)債(zhai)權人(ren)(ren)造成嚴(yan)重損害。
本案(an)中(zhong)，股(gu)東的債權(quan)人(ren)(ren)雖能(neng)(neng)證(zheng)明(ming)公司代唯一股(gu)東收取了合(he)同款(kuan)508000元，但不足以證(zheng)明(ming)股(gu)東與公司財務混(hun)同不可分，亦未(wei)證(zheng)明(ming)股(gu)東不能(neng)(neng)清償案(an)涉債務，嚴重損害債權(quan)人(ren)(ren)利益，故法院對(dui)于其要(yao)求適用“逆向(xiang)人(ren)(ren)格否認”的訴請(qing)予以駁(bo)回(hui)。
日期：2023-7-18 12:19:00 | 關閉 |
Copyright © 1999-2021 法律圖書館
.
.
