2023年《公司法》第88条第1款填补了未届期股权转让后出资责任归属问题的立法空白，为各方商事主体提供了明确的预期，也为司法适用提供了统一的标准。然而，第88条第1款也面临着一些利益失衡、矫枉过正的质疑，在理论层面依然受到热议；《最高人民法院关于<中华人民共和国公司法>第八十八条第一款不溯及适用的批复》也对处理新《公司法》出台前的存量纠纷解决产生了影响。围绕着未届期股权转让后转让股东所应承担的出资责任问题，本文通过实证研究的方法收集整理了新《公司法》第88条第1款和司法解释实行之后的司法判例，重点关注新法施行后的裁判观点是否统一、新法溯及适用的情况、实务中股东借转让股权逃避出资义务的情况等等，聚焦司法实务中存在的重点难点问题。从法理基础角度，本文先根据理论与实务中的争议焦点梳理出未届期股权定性、出资义务的定性、股东期限利益的保护限度、股东权利与义务是否概括转移等前置问题，在厘清上述问题的基础之上论证了转让股东承担补充出资责任的合理性，并总结了转让股东承担补充责任具有客观性、有限性、补充性的特征。从利益衡量角度，本文首先论证了本研究问题可以使用利益衡量方法进行讨论。之后，本文对未届期股权转让中的核心利益关系——“公司债权人-公司-转让股东”进行界定，并从群体利益、制度利益、社会公共利益不同层级出发对利益衡量进行展开，并通过具体案例代入当事人的利益进行验证，最终得出了转让股东承担补充责任能够实现利益平衡的结论。最后，本文根据上述讨论，对实证研究中发现的股权多次转让下前手转让股东之间的责任顺位问题、第88条第1款不溯及适用后存量纠纷的处理问题进行回应，探究可能的解决路径。根据补充责任的顺位性，在股权多次转让的场景中，应根据股权转让顺序形成责任追索链条，从后至前依次确定前手转让股东的出资责任。针对新《公司法》颁布前的存量纠纷，可援引2018年《公司法》第3条进行法律原则方面的裁判说理，以确定转让股东的补充责任，依据公司法的精神公平公正处理。
Article 88 (1) of the 2023 Company Law filled the legislative gap regarding the apportionment of capital contribution obligations after the transfer of unexpired equity, providing clear expectations for commercial entities and a unified standard for judicial application. However, Article 88 (1) has faced criticism for potential interest imbalance and over correction, remaining a hot topic in theoretical discussions. Furthermore, Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court Regarding the Non-Retroactive Application of Paragraph 1 of Article 88 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China has influenced the resolution of disputes that occurred before the new Company Law was promulgated.Focusing on the capital contribution responsibilities of equity transferor after the transfer of unexpired equity, this paper collects judicial cases following the implementation of Article 88 (1) of the Company Law and relevant judicial interpretations. The study focuses on several key aspects: whether judicial viewpoints have achieved uniformity post-enactment, the retroactive application of the new law, and practical cases where shareholders evade their contribution obligations by transferring equity. The research aims to address critical and challenging issues in judicial practice.From a theoretical perspective, this paper identifies and clarifies several prerequisite issues. The paper first clarifies the nature of unexpired equity, the extent of protection of shareholders' period benefits, the definition of capital contribution obligations, and whether shareholders' rights and obligations are transferred in totality. Based on this, the paper argues for the rationality of equity transferor bearing supplementary capital contribution responsibilities and summarizes the characteristics of such liability as being objective, limited, and supplementary.From the perspective of interest weighing, the paper discusses the research questions by applying interest measurement theory. It defines the core interest relationships in unexpired equity transfer: creditors-company-equity transferor. Then the paper analyzes interests across different levels. Through specific case examples, it concludes that equity transferor bearing supplementary responsibilities can achieve interest balance.Finally, the paper addresses issues identified in the empirical research, such as the order of responsibilities among equity transferor in multiple equity transfers and the handling of legacy disputes following the non-retroactive application of Article 88 (1). According to the sequential nature of supplementary liability, in scenarios involving multiple equity transfers, liability should be traced according to the sequence of equity transfers, sequentially determining the contribution liability of prior equity transferors from the most recent to the earliest. For legacy disputes arising before the promulgation of the new Company Law, the principle provisions of Article 3 of the 2018 Company Law can be applied to determining the supplementary liability of equity transferors and ensuring fair judgments in line with the spirit of the Company Law.
