Analysis Of Similar Cases To Acceleration Of Shareholders’ Investment Obligation In Civil Execution

The newly revised Company Law in 2013 gives shareholders the autonomy to make capital contribution,so the shareholders of the company stipulate the abnormal long term of capital contribution in the articles of association,that make the company’s long-term lack of funds.In the case of the company as the person to be enforced,the company has no property to be enforced,and the time limit of the shareholders’ contribution is far away.In this case,if the obligation of shareholders’ capital contributions shall not be applied to accelerate expiration,even if the creditors of the company get the judgment of winning in the lawsuit,they will not be able to realize the creditor’s rights.In the bankruptcy liquidation procedure,the accelerated maturity of shareholder’s contribution obligation can be applied.However,relatively speaking,there are a few companies entering the bankruptcy liquidation procedure in practice.Besides the bankruptcy liquidation procedure,especially in the execution procedure,whether the accelerated maturity of shareholder’s contribution period can be applied has become an urgent problem to be solved.However,there is no clear legal provisions for this topic,which is controversial in academic and practical circles.Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on certain issues relating to alteration and addition of parties in civil enforcement(hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Provisions)provides that where a company’s assets are insufficient to satisfy its debts,the shareholder who has not paid the capital contribution or has not paid the capital contribution in full,may be added to the execution procedure as the person to be executed.However,there is still a dispute as to whether the shareholders who have not paid or not paid their capital contributions in full in this provision include shareholders who have not expired the term of capital contribution.Since the implementation of the Enforcement Provisions in 2016,77 effective legal documents related to the accelerated maturity of shareholders’ contribution obligations in the implementation process have shown that judges in different regions have different understandings and applications of this provision in the implementation process.In judicial practice,the parties to the case have different opinions,and the courts in different places have different understandings of the issue,even the opinions of the same court’s executive department and the judicial department are quite different.According to Article 17 of the executive provisions,the executive department addedthe shareholder as the executee,but it was revoked by the judicial department in the lawsuit of objection to execution,which seriously damaged the authority of the law.The judge who is in favor of accelerating the expiration of the enforcement shall apply Article 17 of the enforcement provisions to reason,while the judge who is not in favor of applying the same article does not support the creditor’s additional application,so the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case is more and more serious in judicial practice.This paper makes an empirical analysis on the differences in the understanding of Article 17 of the implementing regulations,whether the shareholders can be added as the party subjected to execution and how to determine the scope of the additional shareholders’ responsibility,demonstrate the legitimacy of the accelerated expiration of shareholders’ investment obligations in the execution procedure.