我国《公司法》第16条规定了公司为股东提供担保的合法性。对此类担保作出了程序上的限制性规定，以立法的形式结束了, 公司法理论界与实务界关于公司能否为自已股东提供担保的争论。
Article 16th of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the legality of the guarantee provided by the company for shareholders. It makes procedural restrictions on this kind of guarantee, and ends the dispute between the theoretical and practical circles of company law about whether the company can provide guarantee for its own shareholders in the form of legislation.
而作为对公司类型的重大发展，《公司法》规定了一人有限责任公司制度，使一人公司在我国得到了法律的认可。但《公司法》未明确规定一人公司能否为其股东提供担保，司法裁判中，各地法院对此也呈现出同案不同判的情形。
As a significant development of the company type, the Company Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the system of one person limited liability company, which makes one person company recognized by law in China. However, the law does not specify whether a one-man company can provide guarantee for its shareholders. In the judicial judgment, the courts in different regions have different judgments in the same case.
根据我们在处理类似案件中的经验总结，一人有限责任公司为自己股东担保是有效的。
According to our experience in handling similar cases, it is effective for one person limited liability company to guarantee for its shareholders.
首先，从《公司法》第16条的适用范围看，其根据担保受益人将公司担保分为一般担保和特殊担保。所谓一般担保，即公司为无投资关系和无实际控制关系的其他法人、经济组织和个人提供的担保。所谓特殊担保，即公司为有投资关系的股东或者有实际控制力的其他主体提供的担保，担保受益人与公司存在利益关系甚至对公司有控制力。
First of all, from the scope of application of Article 16th of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the company guarantee is divided into general guarantee and special guarantee according to the guarantee beneficiary. The so-called general guarantee refers to the guarantee provided by the company for other legal persons, economic organizations and individuals without investment relationship or actual control relationship. The so-called special guarantee refers to the guarantee provided by the company for the shareholders with investment relationship or other subjects with actual control power. The beneficiary of the guarantee has an interest relationship with the company and even has control power over the company.
前者依据章程的授权由公司经营决策机构董事会或者公司所有者决策机构股东会行使，后者的决策权只能由公司所有者决策机构股东会行使。对于不设事会或者股东会的一人公司而言，《公司法》第16条关于担保能力的规定无适用的必要，因为不设董事会或者股东会的一人公司在公司所有权和经营权上未分离，均由公司所有者即唯一的股东行使，而公司为他人保的决策权属于公司所有者的权利。因此，该规定仅主要适用于一般有限公司股份公司，对上市公司适用的意义更大。
The former is authorized by the articles of association to be exercised by the board of directors of the company's decision-making body or the shareholders' meeting of the company's owner's decision-making body, while the latter can only be exercised by the shareholders' meeting of the company's owner's decision-making body. For a one-man company without a board of directors or a board of shareholders, Article 16 of the law on the guarantee ability is not necessary, because the one-man company without a board of directors or a board of shareholders does not separate the ownership and management rights of the company, which are exercised by the owner of the company, that is, the only shareholder, and the decision-making power of the company for others belongs to the owner of the company. Therefore, the regulation is only applicable to general limited company, and it is more significant for listed companies.
其次，从《公司法》第16条的立法本意和立法目的看，第16条规定的特殊担保下股东回避表决旨在防止大股东(利害关系股东)滥用股东权利，保护公司和小股东(无利害关系股东)免遭公司担保的风险，确保公司更加客观公正地决定是否为其股东进行担保，而并非禁止或限该类特殊担保。
Secondly, from the perspective of the legislative purpose of Article 16th of the law, the purpose of shareholders' avoidance of voting under the special guarantee stipulated in Article 16th is to prevent major shareholders (interested shareholders) from abusing their rights, protect the company and small shareholders (non interested shareholders) from the risk of the company's guarantee, and ensure that the company can make a more objective and fair decision on whether to guarantee for its shareholders rather than forbid it or limited to such special guarantee.
实践中，一人公司不存在大股东与小股东之别，也不在利害关系股东与无利害关系股东之别，唯一的股东同意提供担保的不仅体现了股东意志，也体现了公司意志，在没有其他利害关系股东存在的情形下，也就谈不上损害其他股东的利益。
In practice, there is no difference between large shareholders and small shareholders, nor between interested shareholders and non interested shareholders in one person limited liability company. The only shareholder who agrees to provide guarantee not only reflects the will of shareholders, but also reflects the will of the company. In the case of no other interested shareholders, it can not damage the interests of others.
因此，一人公司的股东可以自行作出由一人公司为自己债务提供担保的决定。至于是否损害公司债权人利益，则属于民法中撤销权的范畴，不属于公司法的调整范围。如果股东公司担保损害资本维持原则，甚至抽逃出资，则可以援引公司法关于股东抽逃出资或者股东滥用公司法人地位等法律规定，追究股东的法律责任。
Therefore, the shareholders of one person limited liability company can make their own decision to guarantee their debts. As for whether to damage the interests of the creditors of the company, it belongs to the scope of revocation right in the civil law, and does not belong to the adjustment scope of the company law. If the shareholder's company guarantee damages the principle of maintaining capital, or even withdraws capital contribution, the legal provisions of the company law on Shareholder's withdrawal of capital contribution or shareholder's abuse of corporate status can be invoked to investigate the legal liability of shareholders.
再次，从审查债权人的注意义务看，一般担保的债权人有义务向公索取公司章程规定的担保决策机构关于同意担保的决议。特殊担保的债权人有义务向公司索取公司股东会关于同意担保的决议。
Thirdly, from the perspective of examining the duty of care of the creditors, the general secured creditors have the obligation to ask the company for the resolution of the guarantee decision-making body on agreeing to the guarantee stipulated in the articles of association. The creditor of special guarantee has the obligation to ask for the resolution of the shareholders' meeting of the company on agreeing to guarantee.
否则，一旦公司越权提供担保，债权人因未尽到必要的注意义务而存在过失，即无法得《合同法》第49条规定的表见代理制度的保护，担保合同归于无效。Otherwise, once the company provides the guarantee beyond its authority, the creditor will be negligent because he fails to fulfill the necessary duty of care, that is, he will not be protected by the apparent agency system stipulated in Article 49th of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, and the guarantee contract will be invalid.
实践中，一人公司因仅有一个股东，自然无法成立股东会并形成股东会议，况且股东会设立与否也仅是形式上的差别，法律之所以赋予股东会职权是因为股东会由股东组成，而股东是公司的出资人。一人公司虽不设股东会，但股东本身仍是出资人，自然有权行使公司法所赋予股东会的所有职权，包括对外担保的决策权。
In practice, a one-man company has only one shareholder, so it is impossible to set up a shareholders' meeting and form a shareholders' meeting. Moreover, whether a shareholders' meeting is set up or not is only a formal difference. The reason why the law endows the shareholders' meeting with authority is that the shareholders' meeting is composed of the investors of the company. Although a one-man company does not set up a shareholders' meeting, the shareholders themselves are still the investors and naturally have the right to run the company, including the decision-making power of external guarantee.
因此，只要公司章程不禁止，股东个人同意后公司对外担保的能力就具备了，只不过股东行使职权作出担保的决定时，法律上倡导的是采取书面形式并由股东签名备置于公司，这样是为了更全面更完整地记载一人公司的运营状况。
Thus, as long as the articles of association do not prohibit the company to guarantee,it will have the ability to provide external guarantee with the consent of the shareholders. However, when the shareholders exercise their powers to make the decision of guarantee, it is advocated in law that the written form should be adopted and signed by the shareholders, so as to record the operation status of one-man company more comprehensively and completely.
但实践中一人公司操作并不如此规范和明确，股东个人同意的意思表示往往是在担保合同中加以体现，也就是说，担保合同上加盖了公司的公章就意味着股东做出了同意担保的意思表示，更何况是特殊担保即为该股东的债务进行担保。
But in practice, the operation of one-man company is not so standardized and clear, and the expression of shareholders' personal consent is often reflected in the guarantee contract, that is to say, if the company's official seal is stamped on the guarantee contract, it means that the shareholders have made the expression of consent to guarantee, not to mention the special guarantee, that is, to guarantee the debt of the shareholder.
作为债权人而言，对于一人公司担保能力的审查义务是非常宽松的，只要审查一人公司的章程中有无对外担保的特殊规定，如果没有，那么担保合同中有一人公司盖章即可“高枕无忧”。
As a creditor, the obligation to review the guarantee ability of one-man company is very loose. As long as there are special provisions on external guarantee in the articles of association of one-man company, if not, the one-man company’s seal in the guarantee contract makes them easy.
因此，在公司章程没有对公司担保的问题作出规定的情况下，基于债权人没有过错，对担保的合理期待是应当受到保护的。
Therefore, in the case that the articles of association does not provide for the issue of corporate guarantee, the reasonable expectation of guarantee should be protected because the creditors have no fault.
最后，法无禁止即自由。既然《公司法》第16条作为一般规范而言对一人公司无适用的必要，而且《公司法》分则的特殊规范中亦未对一人公司为其股东提供担保作相应规定。
Finally, the law is free without prohibition. Since Article 16th of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China is not necessary to apply to one-man company as a general norm, and there is no corresponding provision for one-man company to provide guarantee for its shareholders in the special norms of the law.
根据私法中“法无禁止即自由”的理念，以及从适应市场商主体的融资需求，尊重交易效率和减少交易成本出在章程没有禁止性规定的前提下，应当允许一人公司为其股东提供担保。
According to the concept of "freedom without prohibition of law" in private law, and in order to adapt to the financing needs of market players, respect transaction efficiency and reduce transaction costs In the absence of prohibitive provisions, one person company should be allowed to provide guarantee for its shareholders.
作者:徐宝同Author：XuBaotong
日照仲裁委员会仲裁员
Arbitrator of RIZHAO Arbitration
上海锦坤律师事务所合伙人
Partner of Shanghai JinKun Law firm
业务方向: 民商事类、诉讼仲裁争议解决
Commercial Arbitration and Litigation
联系方式Phone:+86-139 1721 9966