本次《公司法》修订中，新增了董事对第三人责任的概括性条款，确立了我国的董事对第三人责任制度。自《公司法修订草案》（一审稿）公布以后，该新增条款引起了极大争议，学界对于是否应当设置董事对第三人责任制度以及制度设计中的诸多问题均有不同意见，例如责任的性质、责任的范围、责任的承担形式等。本文通过规范分析、比较法等研究方法，试图厘清董事对第三人责任的理论及适用问题。 本文认为，固守传统的法人机关理论导致了董事滥用权力损害第三人利益却无需承担责任的结果，不利于第三人尤其是债权人利益的保护，亦有违法律的公平原则。事实上，董事的身份具有双重属性，即公司属性和个人属性，从公司属性角度而言，公司应当对董事的职务行为负责，而从个人属性角度而言，董事应当对自己的行为负责，故而在董事职务行为造成第三人损害的情形下，在符合构成要件时，二者应当共同对第三人承担责任。因此，建立董事对第三人责任制度并非对传统法人机关理论的推翻，而是对其进行修正，从董事身份的双重属性角度补充该理论。此外，委托代理理论、公司社会责任理论亦对董事对第三人责任制度提供了一定的法理基础。 董事对第三人责任是一个长期的课题，相较于是否应当建立该制度的争论，如何构建、适用该制度更为重要。新《公司法》第191条关于董事对第三人责任的概括条款已获得通过，但该条款仍较为笼统，制度中的诸多问题仍有待立法与司法实践的进一步明确。本文从董事对第三人责任的性质、责任范围、责任形式、构成要件等多方面进行了论证，提出了构建我国董事对第三人责任制度的相关建议。 与此同时，本文亦提出董事对第三人责任的平衡措施，避免造成矫枉过正，有违制度初衷。具体而言，可通过构建董事责任保险制度、引入商业判断规则以及建立董事补偿制度等，三种方式相互联系、补充，共同构成对董事责任的平衡，促进董事对第三人责任制度的合理发展。

In the revision of the Company Law, a clause on directors' liability to the third party has been added, and the system of directors' liability to the third party in China has been established. Since the publication of the Revised Draft of the Company Law (the first draft), this new clause has caused great controversy. In academic community, there are different opinions on whether to set up the system of directors' liability to third parties and many problems in the system design, such as the nature, scope and form of responsibility. This paper attempts to clarify the theory and application of directors' liability to the third party through normative analysis and comparative method. This paper holds that adhering to the traditional theory of corporate organs leads to the result that directors abuse their power to harm the interests of third parties without taking responsibility, which is not conducive to the protection of the interests of third parties, especially creditors, and also violates the principle of fairness of law. In fact, the identity of directors has dual attributes, that is, corporate attributes and personal attributes. From the perspective of corporate attributes, the company should be responsible for the directors' duties, while from the perspective of personal attributes, the directors should be responsible for their own actions. Therefore, in the case that the directors' duties cause damage to a third party, they should be jointly responsible for the third party when they meet the constitutive requirements. Therefore, the establishment of the system of directors' liability to the third party is not to overthrow the traditional theory of corporate organs, but to amend it and supplement the theory from the perspective of the dual attributes of directors' identity. In addition, the principal-agent theory and corporate social responsibility theory also provide a certain legal basis for the system of directors' liability to the third party. Directors' liability to the third party is a long-term issue, and how to construct and apply this system is more important than the debate on whether it should be established. The clause of Article 191 of the new Company Law on directors' liability to the third party has been adopted, but it is still relatively general, and many problems in the system still need to be further clarified in legislation and judicial practice. This paper demonstrates the nature, scope, form and constitutive requirements of directors' liability to the third party, and puts forward some suggestions on constructing the system of directors' liability to the third party in China. At the same time, this paper also puts forward the balanced measures of directors' liability to the third party to avoid overcorrection and violate the original intention of the system. Specifically, the three ways, namely, establishing the directors' liability insurance system, introducing business judgment rules and establishing the directors' compensation system, can be interrelated and supplemented to form a balance of directors' liability and promote the reasonable development of directors' liability system to third parties.