一人公司財產獨立證明法理重述及裁判規則審思

Member Company Property and Review of Adjudication Rules

一人公司財產獨立證明（第63條）標準長期存在分歧，在規範困境與認知困境雙重作用下，法官對司法審計過度依賴。上述分歧與困境，是不同法官在司法制度、公司制度、證據制度、司法鑒定制度等方面的價值取向差異在個案處理中的具體表現。由於司法實踐漸以嚴苛證明標準為主流，涉訴一人公司人格否定概率畸高，一人公司的制度價值遭受質疑，《公司法》第六次修訂中立法者對第63條的存廢產生搖擺。理想的一人公司財產獨立證明裁判規則，應建構於多元價值的兼顧和平衡之上：首先，第63條作為特殊規則單獨適用，不受第20條第3款項下主觀惡意和損害結果要件約束；其次，財務會計報告是證明公司財產流向最為適當的證據形態，應當圍繞年度審計義務展開證據資格審查；再者，適格證據的證明力大小雙向受制於形式和內容，專項司法審計報告的證明力最高；最後，一人公司履行年度審計義務的可考慮舉證責任適當减輕並部分轉移，亦可考慮將一人公司股東的連帶清償責任解釋為限定於財產混同範圍之內。鑒於第63條具有獨特價值，立法上不應摒棄，而應加以改造完善。年度審計義務（第62條）若附加專項審計內容，則制度功效將有效激活。

The standard of independent proof of single-member company property (Article 63) has long been different, and under the dual role of normative dilemma and cognitive dilemma, judges over-rely on judicial audit. The above differences and dilemmas are the concrete manifestation of the difference in the value orientation of different judges in the judicial system, the company system, the evidence system and the judicial appraisal system in the case handling. Because the judicial practice is gradually taking the strict proof standard as the mainstream, the probability of denying the personality of the single-member company involved in the lawsuit is extremely high, and the institutional value of the single-member company is questioned. In the sixth amendment of the Company Law, the legislator has wavering on the survival or abolition of article 63. The ideal single-member company property independent proof adjudication rule should be built on the consideration and balance of multiple values: First, Article 63 is applied separately as a special rule, and is not subject to the subjective malice and damage result requirements under Article 20 paragraph 3; Secondly, the financial accounting report is the most appropriate form of evidence to prove the direction of the company’s property, and the qualification examination of evidence should be carried out around the annual audit obligation. In addition, the probative power of qualified evidence is subject to both form and content, and the probative power of special judicial audit report is the highest. Finally, the burden of proof for a single-member company to perform the annual audit obligation can be appropriately reduced and partially transferred, and the joint and several liability of the shareholders of a single-member company can also be interpreted as limited to the scope of property confusion. In view of the unique value of article 63, legislation should not be abandoned, but should be improved. Annual audit obligations (Article 62) If special audit content is added, the effectiveness of the system will be effectively activated.