Our Company Legal Person Personality Denial System Applied Research

As the foundation of modern company regulation system, the concept of corporatepersonality is not strange to us. However, it is also not uncommon to see it beingabused in legal practice. In order to deal with this situation, the rule of disregardingcorporate personality emerges. As a necessary complement for corporate personality,it has been promoting and developing the original system. The establishment of thisrule in our country can be traced back to the newly revised Company Law. Since ourjudges are used to syllogism which has its roots in Continental Law system, it wouldbe difficult in putting this disregarding-rule into practice because it originally camefrom Equity Law System. In other words, the research on the practice of this rulewould be of great significance to our legal system.In addition to the introduction and epilogue, is divided into four parts:The first part is a simple summary of the historical evolution of the system in ourcountry, disregard of corporate personality. As early as the1980s and1990s, theconcept of legal personality denied the system introduced into China, the first is anacademic discussion. Since the beginning of the new century, with the voices ofacademia to improve the company ’s system, and judicial practice requirements, thelegal personality to deny that the system ultimately be established in the newlyrevised "Company Law". To an application of the system to conduct a comprehensivegrasp, we must start from the concept of the system. For a concept to grasp,especially for a legal concept to grasp, from a certain aspect of these two dimensions,as well as micro and macro, both in terms. Only by understanding the legalpersonality to deny the development of the system in our country, in order to betterresolve the legal personality to deny the problem of the system where applicable.The second part of the overall analysis of the corporate personality denied thesystem of judicial practice problems and their solutions. Firstly, the distribution of theCompanies Act did not carry out the provisions of the allocation of the burden of proof, but can refer to the provisions of64of the Civil Procedure Law, to take on theburden of proof "who advocate, who is the burden of proof " principle. Taking intoaccount the actual situation of the creditors, in the concrete proof should beappropriate to relax the requirements on creditors of proof. Secondly, it is necessaryto the correct branch of the creditors, but also the proper treatment of creditors of thecompany. This requires to give involuntary creditors voluntary creditors the samerights. Again, reasonable definition of the scope of the subject of proceedingsqualified, has standing to sue to define the scope of the government and creditors ofthe company representing the public interest. In addition, the behavior of elements inthe litigation, should be emphasis on subjective criteria to identified shareholdersabuse the situation and fully consider the difficulty of the creditor ’s burden of proofon this issue. Finally, in the judgment of the results of the elements of the standard of"serious" should be taken to summarize the way the provisions cited increases.The third part is the analysis of the type of personality confuse. Is generallybelieved that personality confused with the applicable system of legal personalitydenied the premise, so the personality to be confused with the type of analysis is veryimportant, but also very necessary. Firstly, the type of personality confused with abrief introduction; Secondly, in view of the meaning of the company to be confusedwith the company’s property be confused with personality confuse the two mainforms, both comparative analysis; Finally, it pointed out where confuse personalitywith the property to be confused with the difference.The fourth part of the property be confused with the manifestations and thestandards discussed. Firstly, the property be confused with the type as personalityconfuse its specific identification criteria for personality to confuse the judge has agreat influence, Thus legal personality denied the application of the system also has agreat influence, and therefore need to be clear in judicial practice, and with meaningconfused with other personality confounding difference. Grasp the property to beconfused with the connotation and extension to prevent the basis of judicial practiceto deny the abuse of corporate personality system, and thus its recognized standardanalysis, it becomes very important. Secondly, the assets with the most common type of personality confuse its specific identification criteria for personality confuse thejudgment has a significant impact.