2013年6月刊？June 2013

编者按：本刊此次报道怎么写与国内有关于的淘宝纺织品进出口贸易与投入资金的最新头条动态展示与企业的操作实务成就，但本刊不宜带替个案的确认民法意见和建议。您若多次给我发本刊或许要投稿、退订或进一歩认识本刊的內容，请与陕西省省刑辩律所促进会一般投入资金与纺织品进出口贸易民法专门理事会会的有关于刑辩律所沟通。

Editor's note: the purpose of this publication is to report the mostrecent developments in the field of cross-border trade and investment inconnection with China, as well as our practical experience therein. However,this publication should not be treated as a substitute for a formal legalopinion in individual cases. If you have received this publication more thanonce, or would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to this publication, or followup on any issues raised in this publication, please be in contact with thelawyer you usually deal with at Professional Committee of Foreign Investmentand Trade of Jilin Province Lawyers Association.

目录索引

CONTENTS

[1]  对最大我们司法局15号监督性典例的认知和思想

Some Thoughts and Understandings on the 15th Guiding Case of the SupremeCourt of the People's Republic of China

[2]我国协议书法内容提要

Outline to the Contract Law of CHINA

[3]缔约中的表见微商商标授权

The apparent authority during concluding contracts

[4]国内外资企业创业法介绍速递单号查询

China FDI Law Newsflash

SomeThoughts and Understandings on the 15th Guiding Case of the Supreme Court ofthe People's Republic of China

Xiaoyan Cheng

Shareholders may abuse the company's independent status, this will lead to the confusion of corporate personality, which will result to joint and several liability undertook by relevant affiliated companies. Company Law of the People's Republic of China has made clearly provision of this problem. But how to determine the corporate personality confusion in judicial practice is pretty vague. The Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China has published the 15th Guiding Case on 31th January, 2013, this provides a good guidance to the civil subjects and the courts of all different levels. The writer will introduce the case briefly as follows:

Basic facts:

Xugong Group Construction Machinery Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XugongMachinery Company) claimed that Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company) was inpayment arrears, and there existed confusion of corporate personalities amongChengdu Chuanjiao Engineering Machinery Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to asChuanjiao Machinery Company), Sichuan Ruilu Construction Engineering Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Ruilu Company), and Chuanjiao Industry and TradeCompany; and Mr. Yongli Wang’s (the actual controller of the three companies)personal assets are mixed together with the three companies’. So they allshould bear joint and several liability for the payment of the debts. Theplaintiff asked the court to rule: Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company pay thedebts RMB 10,906,405.71 yuan and the interests; Chuanjiao Machinery Company,Ruilu Company and Mr. Yongli Wang should bear jointand several liability for the payment mentioned above.

Court decisions:

The Intermediate People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, made acivil judgment [(2009) Xu Min Er Chu Zi No. 0065] on 10th April, 2011: firstly,Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company should pay RMB 10916405.71 yuan and theinterests to Xugong Machinery Company within 10 days when the judgment comeinto force; secondly, Chuanjiao Machinery Company and Ruilu Company bear jointand several liability for the above debts; thirdly, the court rejected otherclaims of Xugong Machinery Company.

When the judgment was pronounced, Chuanjiao Machinery Company and RuiluCompany appealed, the Supreme People's Court of Jiangsu Province made the finaljudgment [（2011） Su Shang Zhong Zi No.0107],rejected the appeal, and sustained the original judgment.

Judgment reasons and thejurisprudential basis:

The focus of dispute of the case was: whether the corporate personalitiesof Chuanjiao Machinery Company, Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Company and RuiluCompany are confused, whether the affiliated companies should bear joint andseveral liability for the repayment of the debts.

1. Whether personalityconfusion existed.

The court found outthe following facts through the trial: the three companies mentioned above areaffiliated companies, certain elements such as employees, business and assetswere mixed together, details are as below:

Firstly, the employeeswere mixed among the three companies. The manager、financial manager、accountant、industry and commerce clerk were all the same in thethree companies, the situation was the same among other administrators.

Secondly, thebusinesses were mixed among the three companies. The threecompanies were all involved in engineering and machinery, they used the samesales brochure and deal agreement.

Thirdly, the assetswere mixed among the three companies. The three companies used the same balanceaccount which were all using Mr. Yongli Wang’s signature as payment authority,the allocation of assets could not be discerned anymore.

Therefore, the courtbelieved that, employees, businesses, assets, as the characters of independentpersonalities, had been mixed together, this led to the confusion of theirassets,  they had lost their independentpersonalities, constituted personality confusion.

2. Whether the affiliatedcompanies should bear joint and several liabilities.

The court believedthat, independent personalities were the premises for the companies to enjoyindependent liabilities. The assets of companies were the guarantees for themto enjoy independent liabilities. When the affiliated companies’ assets aremixed, they lost their independent personalities and the basis of enjoyingliabilities independently. So the court made a decision: Chuanjiao MachineryCompany and Ruilu Company bear joint and several liability according to Article20 of Company Law of the People's Republic of China, “shareholders by abusingshareholders' rights shall be liable for compensation where any of theshareholders of a company evades the payment of debts and seriously damages theinterests of any creditor of the company by abusing the company's independentstatus as a legal person or the limited liability of shareholders, it shallbear several and joint liability for the debts of the company” .

Revelations and warnings:

The practice of setting up affiliated corporations for scattering risks orbidding is very common in legal practice. So it is very important for companiesto set up legal corporate governance structure, to distinguish employees,business and assets clearly to avoid confusion of personalities among theaffiliated companies. This essay tries to draw the attention of the companiesby introducing the case mentioned above: on the one hand the creditors maybroaden their mentality while realizing their creditor’s right; on the otherhand, the debtors may reduce their risks of taking jointand several liabilities by acknowledging therelative laws.  

对最大我们法院执行15号免费指导性真实案例的正确理解和心思

程晓燕

介绍工厂新司股东盲目用工厂法定代表性格特质独立认知度，产生工厂性格特质混同疑问而产生的连接工厂期间负担牵连义务的相关联法律条文疑问，目前国内工厂法开始得到确定规范。但民事实际操作中对如何才能认准工厂性格特质混同，则常期具有模湖结识。高达人们朝廷执行于201五年一月31日每天的第四5号建议真实案例，针对民事诉讼法津要素转行管理游戏活动，、朝廷执行按照法定程序审核累似安件展示了更加好的建议意见和建议。我来特将此真实案例简略简单介绍一下：

比较高手民法庭检查指导实例15号：九游会游戏登陆集团集团简介建筑项目机械制造持股现有集团诉长沙川交工贸现有责任书集团等转卖承包合同合同纠纷案

大多案件详情：

原告方九游会游戏登陆集团简介工业机制股权比较有现制集团单位（以內缩略词九游会游戏登陆机制集团单位）诉称：武汉川交工贸比较有现制担责集团单位（以內缩略词川交工贸集团单位）欠交其余款未付，而武汉川交工业机制比较有现制担责集团单位（以內缩略词川交机制集团单位）、山东瑞路制作工业比较有现制集团单位（以內缩略词瑞路集团单位）与川交工贸集团单位性格类型混同，多个集团单位现实掌控人王永礼以其川交工贸集团单位投资人等等的他人净基金与集团单位净基金混同，均应承担的责任连着清偿担责。需求判令：川交工贸集团单位付所欠余款10916405.710元及贷款利息；川交机制集团单位、瑞路集团单位及王永礼等他人对可以达到财产承担的责任连着清偿担责。

裁判员结果显示：

广东省南京市初级国民法庭于201在一年4月10日做出（2009）徐民二初字第0065号民事案件诉讼民事宣判书：一、川交工贸企业于民事宣判书生效日后10交易日向九游会游戏登陆机械设备性性企业支付宝支付应收款10511710.73元及贷款逾期汇款成本；二、川交机械设备性性企业、瑞路企业对川交工贸企业的上面负债分担牵连清偿法律责任；三、驳回申请九游会游戏登陆机械设备性性企业对王永礼等企业控股股东的案件诉讼明确提出。

处决后，川交机诫子公司、瑞路子公司说到上文，最近很多用户问我，说江苏初中级我们司法局于201在一年十月19日给予（2011）苏商终字第0107号民事诉讼处决：驳回复审上文，保持原判。

国际裁判想法及法理地基：

这个案子中异议着重为川交机诫大企业、瑞路大企业与川交工贸大企业是否需要人格特质混同，要否对川交工贸大企业的借款需承担连着清偿主责。

一、可否结构人格类型混同

检察院经诉讼核实：八个有限有限公司互为同步有限有限公司，同学当中当中现实存在师混同、相关业务混同、夫妻共同财产混同等三方协议书面的混同，细节点各为：

第一是以下三单位者混同。以下三单位的运营总监、财富担任人、财务成员财务成员、工商所手序经办月均完全相同，的菅理者亦存在着交叠认职的现状。

第二是这三机构业务量领域混同。这三机构合理企业经营中其涉及到的施工机相应业务量领域，经售期间中的存在互用市场手则、经售意向书的情行；对外开放来进行宣传方案时内容混同。

三是几个平台的财务管理混同。几个平台的的使用双方核算证券账户，以王永礼的同意对于具体情况用款重要依据，对其中的的流动资金及构成没办法关系证明已作辨别。

但是，朝廷相信二个装修公司两者研究方法性格特征的影响（成员、服务、账务等）高强度混同，导致各有婚前财产是没办法辨别，已减弱独力性格特征，定义性格特征混同。

二、会不会要担负连同的责任

审核检察院指出，集团工厂性格独力是其作为一个工厂装修有限司代表独力承载重任的必要条件。而集团工厂物权是集团工厂独力承载重任的类物质维持，集团工厂的独力性格也重点主要表现在物权的独力上。当关联关系集团工厂的物权不能区别，失常独力性格时，就失常了独力承载重任的理论知识。故审核检察院意义《燕赵我们中华共和国集团工厂法》（下面的俗称《集团工厂法》）第一十二条第三个款要求：“集团工厂大装修有限司项目装修有限司的股东乱用集团工厂工厂装修有限司代表独力作用和大装修有限司项目装修有限司的股东有限装修有限司英文重任，放弃装修有限司债权，严重性有损集团工厂债主人财产权的，需对集团工厂装修有限司债权承载牵连重任。”宣判川交自动化集团工厂、瑞路集团工厂对川交工贸集团工厂的装修有限司债权需承载牵连清偿重任。

感触与警告：

在中国到目前为止的司法部门实训中，制造业品牌主销售品牌主经营期间中为达到就其分散型安全隐患、体验招竞价等很重要性而创立同步工厂的手工制作方法相对单一化。因为在销售品牌主经营期间中，依据制定合法的的制造业品牌主法定代表整治设备，精准区分开各级同步工厂的人员、业务范围和财务人员，解决在同步工厂之間因以上的定性分析人格理论独自的环境因素上的极高混同就显小足见很重要。我们尽可能依据对以上的的指导案例分析的简单介绍，引致制造业品牌主的极高特别关注:另外一只因素能让债权被执行人人们达到债权被执行人时能扩展难点，另另外一只因素也能让债权被执行人解决因不太懂法律规范的关于约定而造成 一些无故同步工厂承担责任事故法律责任事故责任事故的新格局发生。

XiaoyanCheng

Senior Partner of Dacheng Law Offices Changchun Office

Tel: +86-431-88562418    

CellPhone: +86-13596159888

Fax: +86-431-88585581

E-mail:xiaoyan.cheng@dachenglaw.com

EducationExperiences

l       2004-2008 PhD      Jilin University Schoolof Law

l       1999-2002  Master    Jilin University School of Law

l       1986-1990  LLB     Jilin University School of Law

l       1998-1999 SOAS    London University ,StephensonHarwood Law Firm

PracticeAreas:

l      Foreign direct investment

l      Merger &Acquisition and Reorganization

l      Corporate Governance & Risk Control

l      International Technical Transformation

l      International Business

l      Litigation and Arbitration

Ms. Cheng has advised and representedclients in a broad range of industries, including investment, finance,insurance, IT, manufacturing, auto, retail, telecommunications, chemical, hotelmanagement, culture and education, publishing and media.

Ms. Cheng has represented numerous clientsin commercial litigation before the Chinese courts and in arbitration beforethe Arbitration Commission, with a particular emphasis on disputes concerning mergersand acquisitions, Sino-foreign joint ventures, real estate, construction andemployment, as well as shareholder and derivatives disputes.

With extensive experience in both the RiskControl and Investment & Equity Trading in litigious and non-litigiouslegal work, Ms. Cheng can help clients solve their problems in an accurate,effective and economic manner.

WorkingLanguages: Chinese andEnglish, Mr. Deng can work in English skillfully.

程晓燕

北京大成（九游会游戏登陆）律师事务所  高级合伙人  

通电话：+86-431-88562418

电脑：+86-13596159888

座机：+86-431-88585581

电邮：xiaoyan.cheng@dachenglaw.com

幼儿教育时代背景：

l       2004-2008 四平市一本大学法学专业院 民商法院士

l       1999-2002 辽宁大家法律学院 民商法硕士学位

l       1986-1990 吉林市高中法条系 全国政治学士

l       1998-1999 德国纽约高中亚非职业学院、StephensonHarwood Law Firm

职业 方面：

？       创业者可以创业  

？       并购案与重新组合  

？       集团公司管理、企业公司危险 谨防                  

？       国际上技术水平有偿转让、可证    

？       香港国际公司

？       对外诉讼案与法律仲裁

程刑事律师的合作方方向有投资费用、科技金融、保险服务行业、IT、创造、汽车的、直销、中国移动、化工品、和文化育儿教育、出版权文化等服务行业。

程法律事务所曾代里之多企业在国家人民检察院及劳动仲裁庭常务研究会参与工商业起诉与劳动仲裁庭，专门是企业并购、中西方中外合作争议、我司股份权争议、遣散、公司清算或纸质合同几个方面的争议。

程拆迁律师 在企业主可能性抑制、投银行融资等非诉及诉讼案劳动仲裁部分具备雄厚的工作经验，要能关心企业精准、很好的且生活地应对事情。

事业语音：中文字幕、日语，程刑事律师可不可以驾轻就熟运用日语运作。