>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Huang Weizhong v. Chen Qiangqing et al. (a case about confirmation of a shareholder's qualification)
黄伟忠诉陈强庆等股东资格确认案
【法宝引证码】

Huang Weizhong v. Chen Qiangqing et al. (a case about confirmation of a shareholder's qualification)
(a case about confirmation of a shareholder's qualification)
黄伟忠诉陈强庆等股东资格确认案
Huang Weizhong v. Chen Qiangqing et al. (a case about confirmation of a shareholder's qualification) 

黄伟忠诉陈强庆等股东资格确认案

[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
Where any other person makes false capital contribution to a company without adopting a resolution of the company's valid shareholders' meeting so as to “dilute” shares held by the company's original shareholders, it will impair the lawful rights and interest of such original shareholders. Even if this act of capital contribution has been registered at the administration for industry and commerce for recordation, it shall still be confirmed invalid and the equity ratio of any original shareholder of the company shall remain unchanged. 未经公司有效的股东会决议通过,他人虚假向公司增资以“稀释”公司原有股东股份,该行为损害原有股东的合法权益,即使该出资行为已被工商行政机关备案登记,仍应认定为无效,公司原有股东股权比例应保持不变。
Plaintiff: Huang Weizhong, male, 43 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Baoshan District, Shanghai Municipality. 原告:黄伟忠。
Defendant: Chen Qiangqing, male, 56 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Wenshui East Road, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:陈强庆。
Defendant: Chen Lin, male, 60 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Shuichan West Road, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:陈琳。
Defendant: Zhang Yang, male, 56 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Baoshan District, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:张洋。
Defendant: Gu Huiping, male, 54 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Baoshan District, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:顾惠平。
Defendant: Shanghai Xinbao Construction and Installation Works Co., Ltd., domiciled at Baoshan District, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:上海新宝建筑安装工程有限公司,住所地:上海市宝山区。
Legal Representative: Zhang Yang, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this Company. 法定代表人:张洋,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Wang Xiuying, female, 57 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled at Baoshan District, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:王秀英。
Defendant: NRS Jiangsu Machinery and Heavy Industry Co., Ltd., domiciled at Private Industrial Park, Fuqiao Township, Taicang City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:江苏恩纳斯重工机械有限公司,住所地:江苏省太仓市浮桥镇民营工业区。
Legal Representative: Wang Leiming, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this Company. 法定代表人:王雷鸣,该公司董事长。
The plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, filed a lawsuit with the People's Government of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality against the defendants, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, Gu Huiping, Shanghai Xinbao Construction and Installation Works Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xinbao Company”), Wang Xiuying, and NRS Jiangsu Machinery and Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “NRS Jiangsu Company”) for dispute over a shareholder's qualification. 原告黄伟忠因与被告陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平、上海新宝建筑安装工程有限公司(以下简称新宝公司)、王秀英、江苏恩纳斯重工机械有限公司(以下简称江苏恩纳斯公司)发生股东资格纠纷,向上海市虹口区人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, alleged that: In April 2004, he and the defendants, Chen Qiangqing et al., jointly set up Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongguan Company”) with the registered capital of 4 million yuan, in which he contributed 800,000 yuan, holding 20% of the Company's shares. Afterwards, all shareholders of Hongguan Company commissioned Chen Qiangqing to handle the transfer of the Company's equities. After the transferee, NRS Jiangsu Company made the corresponding equity transfer payment to the personal account of Chen Qiangqing, Chen Qiangqing was reluctant to make the corresponding payment to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court for dispute over a commission contract. It was not until during litigation that Chen Qiangqing et al. informed the plaintiff of the Company's capital increase and adjustment of equity ratios and that the equity ratio of the plaintiff has been adjusted to 5.33%. On May 24, 2011, upon inquiry of Hongguan Company's industrial and commercial registration information, the plaintiff found the so-called capital increase. Before then, the plaintiff was totally unaware of the matter concerning the so-called capital increase and never signed the resolution of the shareholders' meeting on capital increase. Besides, the so-called investment of 11 million yuan made by Xinbao Company to Hongguan Company was transferred after the capital verification of Hongguan Company was completed, and Hongguan Company never had an actual capital increase. In addition, when the transferee acquired the equities of Hongguan Company, the capital increase was not taken into account in the transfer price. So, Hongguan Company's act of capital increase was fabricated and invalid. Therefore, Huang Weizhong requested the court to confirm that during the period from April 1, 2004 when Hongguan Company was set up to June 6, 2009 when the Company's equities were transferred, he held 20% of Hongguan Company's equities (the specific shareholding period may be determined by the court on the basis of the relevant evidence materials). 原告黄伟忠诉称:2004年4月,黄伟忠与被告陈强庆等共同设立了太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司(以下简称宏冠公司),注册资本为400万元,其中黄伟忠出资80万元,持股20%。嗣后,宏冠公司全体股东委托陈强庆办理公司股权转让之事,受让方江苏恩纳斯公司应将相应的股权转让款转账至陈强庆的个人账户后,陈强庆却迟迟未将相应款项付给原告,故原告以委托合同纠纷为由诉至法院,在诉讼中陈强庆等才告知原告公司增资及股权比例调整之事,原告的股权比例已经被调整为5.33%。 2011年5月24日,经查询宏冠公司工商登记资料,原告发现所谓的增资情况。但此前原告对所谓增资事宜完全不知情,也从未在有关增资的股东会决议上签过字。并且新宝公司所谓的向宏冠公司投资的 1100万元在验资后即转走,公司从未进行过实际增资。此外,受让方在收购宏冠公司股权时,受让价格也没有考虑所有增资的部分。因此,宏冠公司的增资行为是虚构和无效的。故请求确认黄伟忠在2004年4月 1日宏冠公司设立之日起至2009年6月6日股权转让期间持有宏冠公司20%的股权 (具体持股期间由法院根据相关证据材料认定)。
The defendants, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, and Gu Huiping, contended that: After the setup of Hongguan Company, if the Company intended to engage in land development business, its registered capital should reach 15 million yuan according to the provisions of the local government's policies. So, in September 2006, after adopting a resolution of the shareholders' meeting, Hongguan Company added Xinbao Company as a new shareholder to increase capital, of which the plaintiff was aware. Even if the plaintiff was unaware of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting, he should be aware of Hongguan Company's capital increase when the Company's equities were transferred to NRS Jiangsu Company in June 2009. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff exceeded the statute of limitations. With respect to the increased capital of 11 million yuan, although it was transferred back to Xinbao Company after the completion of Hongguan Company's capital increase, its nature was changed to a loan raised by Xinbao Company from Hongguan Company. 被告陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平辩称:宏冠公司设立后,根据当地政府的政策规定,公司如从事土地开发业务,其注册资本应达到1500万元,所以2006年9月,宏冠公司经过股东会决议吸收新宝公司作为股东进行增资,原告对此知悉。即使原告对股东会决议不知情,但是2009年6月宏冠公司股权转让给江苏恩纳斯公司时,原告应当对公司增资知情,因此原告的诉请超过诉讼时效。关于增资的1100万元,虽然该款项在宏冠公司增资后就转给新宝公司,但款项性质发生变化,系属于新宝公司向宏冠公司的借款。
The defendant, Xinbao Company, contended that: When Hongguan Company was set up, the plaintiff made no actual capital contribution and the capital of 800,000 yuan he contributed was lent to him by Xinbao Company. When Xinbao Company specially convened a shareholder's meeting for becoming a shareholder of Hongguan Company, the plaintiff also signed the resolution as a shareholder of Xinbao Company. 被告新宝公司辩称:宏冠公司设立时,原告并没有实际出资,而是由新宝公司借款80万元给其的。新宝公司为入股宏冠公司专门召开新宝公司股东会,原告当时作为新宝公司的股东也在其决议上签字。
The defendant, Wang Xiuying, contended that she agreed with the plaintiff's opinions. After the setup of Hongguan Company, she always held 10% of the Company's equities. Afterwards, the equity structure of the Company remained unchanged and she neither was aware of the Company's capital increase, nor attended the shareholder's meeting on capital increase, not to mention her signature on the so-called resolution of the shareholders' meeting. 被告王秀英辩称:同意原告的意见。宏冠公司设立后,其一直持有公司10%的股权,此后公司的股权结构没有发生过变化,其从未知晓公司增资之事,也没有参加过有关增资的股东会,更未在所谓的股东会决议上签字。
The defendant, NRS Jiangsu Company, contended that: As the transferee of Hongguan Company's equities, it has made the equity transfer payment in full amount according to the requirements of the transfer contract and the letter of confirmation of equity transfer. 被告江苏恩纳斯公司辩称:作为股权受让方,受让人已经按照转让合同及股权转让确认书的要求足额支付股权转让款。
After a hearing of first instance, the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality found that: 上海市虹口区人民法院一审查明:
On April 21, 2004, the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, and the defendants, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, Gu Huiping, and Wang Xiuying, jointly set up Hongguan Company with the registered capital of 4 million yuan, in which Zhang Yang contributed 1.2 million yuan and held 30% of the Company's shares; Huang Weizhong and Gu Huiping each contributed 800,000 yuan and each held 20% of the Company's shares; and Chen Lin, Chen Qiangqing, and Wang Xiuying each contributed 400,000 yuan and each held 10% of the Company's shares. 2004年4月21日,原告黄伟忠与被告陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平、王秀英共同设立了宏冠公司,注册资本为400万元,其中:张洋出资120万元,持股30%;黄伟忠、顾惠平各出资80万元,各持股20%;陈琳、陈强庆、王秀英各出资40万元,各持股 10%。
On October 20, 2006, upon application of Hongguan Company, the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Taicang City, Suzhou City changed the registration of Hongguan Company's registered capital from 4 million yuan to 15 million yuan and changed the registration of the Company's shareholders and their shareholding ratios as follows: Zhang Yang contributed 1.2 million yuan and held 8.00% of the Company's shares; Huang Weizhong and Gu Huiping each contributed 800,000 yuan and each held 5.33% of the Company's shares; Chen Lin, Chen Qiangqing, and Wang Xiuying each contributed 400,000 yuan and each held 2.67% of the Company's shares; and Xinbao Company contributed 11 million yuan and held 73.33% of the Company's shares. The main bases for Hongguan Company's application for the aforesaid changes of registration included the Articles of Association of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd. and the Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd., both with the closing date of October 16, 2006. In particular, the main contents of the Articles of Association were changed as follows: The registered capital of Hongguan Company was increased from the original 4 million yuan to 15 million yuan; and Xinbao Company was added as a new shareholder; and the main contents of the Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting were changed as follows: The changed Articles of Association of the Company were approved; the registered capital of the Company was increased from the original 4 million yuan to 15 million yuan, and Xinbao Company increased its investment to 11 million yuan. 2006年10月20日,苏州市太仓工商行政管理局根据宏冠公司的申请,将宏冠公司登记的注册资本由400万元变更登记为1500万元,同时将股东及持股比例变更登记为:张洋出资120万元,持股8.00%;黄伟忠、顾惠平各出资80万元,各持股 5.33%;陈琳、陈强庆、王秀英各出资40万元,各持股2.67%;新宝公司出资1100万元,持股73.33%。申请上述变更登记的主要依据为落款日期均为2006年10月16日的《太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司章程》、《太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司股东会决议》。其中章程内容的主要变更为:宏冠公司的注册资本由原来的400万元增加至1500万元;增加新宝公司为股东,等等。股东会决议载明的主要内容为:同意修改后的公司章程;增加公司注册资本,由原来的400万元增加到1500万元,新宝公司增加投资1100万元,等等。
In the hearing of first instance, Xinbao Company and other defendants presented the Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Xinbao Construction and Installation Works Co., Ltd. with the closing date of September 26, 2006 and the Articles of Association of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd. with the closing date of September 28, 2006, which, respectively, specified that “On September 26, 2006, a general shareholders' meeting was convened in the conference room of Shanghai Xinbao Construction and Installation Works Co., Ltd. Upon deliberation, all shareholders agreed to make capital contribution of 11 million yuan in cash to become a shareholder of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd.” and “On September 28, 2006, a general shareholders' meeting was convened in the conference room of the Preparatory Office of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd. and all shareholders agreed to the admission of Shanghai Xinbao Construction and Installation Works Co., Ltd. as a new shareholder.” 一审审理中,被告新宝公司等出示了落款日期为2006年9月26日的《上海新宝建筑安装工程有限公司股东大会决议》及落款日期为2006年9月28日的《太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司章程》,分别载明“2006年9月26日在上海新宝建筑安装工程有限公司会议室召开全体股东大会。经全体股东讨论同意以现金人民币1100万元入股太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司”、“2006年9月28日在太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司筹备处会议室召开了全体股东会议,全体股东均表示同意上海新宝建筑安装工程有限公司入股”。
On May 21, 2009, as the representative of Hongguan Company's shareholders, the defendant, Chen Qiangqing, concluded a contract on the transfer of equities with NRS Suzhou Company, which stipulated that all equities of Hongguan Company were transferred to NRS Suzhou Company at the price of 8,248,500 yuan and the transferee, NRS Suzhou Company, was temporarily a company and it would provide the final list of shareholders before the formal handling of the equity transfer. On June 24, 2009, the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Taicang City, Suzhou City issued a Written Notice on Approving the Change of Registration of NRS Jiangsu Company, which specified that the original shareholders of NRS Jiangsu Company have been changed from the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong and the defendants, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, Gu Huiping, Wang Xiuying, and Xinbao Company to NRS Suzhou Company and Nantong Yuanhua Trade Co., Ltd. and the aforesaid change matter has been under industrial and commercial recordation. 2009年5月21日,被告陈强庆作为宏冠公司股东代表与苏州恩纳斯公司签订股权转让合同,苏州恩纳斯公司以 8 248 500元价格受让了宏冠公司的全部股权,受让方苏州恩纳斯公司暂定为一个公司,在正式办理股权转让前提供最终的股东名单。2009年6月24日,苏州市太仓工商行政管理局出具《公司准予变更登记通知书》,载明:江苏恩纳斯公司原股东已由原告黄伟忠、被告陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平、王秀英、新宝公司变更为苏州恩纳斯公司、南通远华贸易有限公司,上述变更事项已经工商备案,等等。
In the court hearing, since both the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, and the defendant, Wang Xiuying, denied the authenticity of the aforesaid Articles of Association of Hongguan Company and Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting of Hongguan Company, the defendant, Xinbao Company, filed an application for identifying whether the scripts of “Huang Weizhong” on the Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting of Xinbao Company on September 26, 2006 and the Resolution of the Shareholders' Meeting of Hongguan Company on September 28, 2006 were actually those of Huang Weizhong. According to the identification opinions, the signature scripts of “Huang Weizhong” on the aforesaid two resolutions and that on the sample were not written by the same person. 庭审中,由于原告黄伟忠及被告王秀英均否认上述公司章程和股东会决议的真实性,为此,被告新宝公司提出申请,要求对2006年9月26日的新宝公司的股东大会决议及2006年9月28日宏冠公司的股东会决议上“黄伟忠”的字迹是否系黄伟忠的笔迹进行鉴定。经鉴定,鉴定意见为,上述两份决议上“黄伟忠”的签名字迹与对比样本上的“黄伟忠”签名字迹不是同一人书写形成。
It was also found that in accordance with the Articles of Association of Hongguan Company, to increase the registered capital of the Company, the shareholders' meeting of the Company shall make a resolution and the capital increase shall be adopted by the shareholders representing 2/3 or more of the voting rights. The capital of 11 million yuan of the defendant, Xinbao Company, invested in Hongguan Company for the so-called capital increase was paid back to Xinbao Company in the form of “loan” after the capital verification of Hongguan Company was completed on October 18, 2006. 另查明,根据宏冠公司章程的规定,公司增加注册资本,应由公司股东会作出决议,并经代表三分之二以上表决权的股东通过。被告新宝公司用于所谓增资宏冠公司的1100万元,于2006年10月18日完成验资后,就以“借款”的形式归还给新宝公司。
The focal disputes of this case in the first instance were whether Hongguan Company had a legal and valid capital increase and the impact of such capital increase on the shareholding ratio of the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong. 本案一审的争议焦点是:宏冠公司是否进行了合法有效的增资以及对原告黄伟忠持股比例的影响。
After a hearing of first instance, the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality held that: Under the premise that the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, did not dispose of his equities in accordance with the articles of association of Hongguan Company, the shareholding ratio of Huang Weizhong should not be reduced unless Hongguan Company had a legal capital increase. Xinbao Company and other defendants contended that on October 20, 2006, Hongguan Company completed the capital increase of 11 million yuan and they provided the so-called resolution of the shareholders' meeting of Xinbao Company; however, where both the plaintiff and the defendant, Wang Xiuying, denied the capital increase, Xinbao Company and other defendants failed to provide evidence materials that were sufficient to prove the authenticity of such written material. On the contrary, the identification opinions on the scripts of “Huang Weizhong” further verified the fact that Huang Weizhong did not sign the relevant resolutions of the shareholders' meetings. It could be inferred that as the former shareholders of Hongguan Company, Huang Weizhong, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, Gu Huiping, and Wang Xiuying have not convened a shareholders' meeting on the matter concerning Hongguan Company's capital increase of 11 million yuan. Where Hongguan Company did not convene a shareholders' meeting, its so-called act of capital increase of 11 million yuan violated its articles of associations and the law, and was invalid. In addition, the results showed that the so-called 11 million yuan for increasing capital of Hongguan Company was paid back to Xinbao Company in the form of “loan” after the capital verification of Hongguan Company was completed and under this circumstance, it could not be recognized that Xinbao Company has performed obligations of capital contribution. Therefore, the court determined that Hongguan Company failed to complete an essential capital increase on October 20, 2006 and Hongguan Company's reduction of the plaintiff's shareholding ration in the name of a capital increase has infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of the plaintiff. 上海市虹口区人民法院一审认为:在原告黄伟忠没有依公司章程对其股权作出处分的前提下,除非宏冠公司进行了合法的增资,否则原告的持股比例不应当降低。新宝公司等被告辩称宏冠公司曾于2006年10月20日完成增资1100万元,并为此提供了所谓股东会的决议,但在原告及被告王秀英否认的情况下,新宝公司等被告却没有提供足以证明该些书面材料系真实的证据材料。相反,有关“黄伟忠”的笔迹鉴定意见却进一步证实了黄伟忠并没有在相关股东会决议上签名的事实。由此可推知,黄伟忠、陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平、王秀英作为宏冠公司的前股东未就宏冠公司增资1100万元事宜召开过股东会。在未召开股东会的情况下,所谓宏冠公司增资1100万元的行为,违反了宏冠公司的章程及法律的规定,是无效的行为。此外,从结果上来看,宏冠公司用于所谓增资的1100万元,在完成验资后,就以“借款”的形式归还给新宝公司,此种情形不能认定新宝公司已经履行了出资的义务。因此法院认定,宏冠公司并未在2006年10月20日完成实质上增资,宏冠公司以增资为名,降低原告的持股比例,侵犯了原告的合法权益。
In conclusion, in accordance with the provisions of item (7) of paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, paragraph 1 of Article 64 and Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 2 of the Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, on December 31, 2012, the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality rendered a judgment to: 综上,上海市虹口区人民法院依据《中华人民共和国公司法》第三十八条三年不开张,开张吃三年第一款第七项、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第六十四条第一款、第一百三十条法小宝最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第二条之规定,于2012年12月31日判决如下:
Confirm that the plaintiff, Huang Weizhong, held 20% of equities of Taicang Hongguan Steelworks Co., Ltd. (renamed to NRS Jiangsu Machinery and Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.) during the period from April 21, 2004 to June 24, 2009. 确认原告黄伟忠自2004年4月21日起至2009年6月24日止期间持有太仓宏冠钢结构制品有限公司(已变更名称为江苏恩纳斯重工机械有限公司)20%的股权。
Xinbao Company refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed to the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. The appellant claimed that Huang Weizhong himself knew that he did not make any capital contribution; instead, he borrowed money from Xinbao Company and set up Hongguan Company jointly with other persons. At that time, Huang Weizhong was a shareholder of Xinbao Company and assumed as the manager thereof. After the registration of Hongguan Company was completed, he returned the registered capital to Xinbao Company and Hongguan Company was not engaged in any actual business operation. With the financing by registered shareholders and parties not involved in the case, Hongguan Company planned to purchase land in an industrial park. Due to restrictions of local policies, Hongguan Company could not purchase such land until it increased its capital. Huang Weizhong also stated that he also contributed capital for purchasing the land. So, it was obvious that he knew the necessity of capital increase. In the course of equity transfer, Huang Weizhong fully commissioned any other person to handle it. It was contrary to common sense when Huang Weizhong denied his knowledge of this matter on the ground that he never signed the relevant capital increase documents. 新宝公司不服一审判决,向上海市第二中级人民法院提出上诉。上诉人提出,黄伟忠明知其未出资,而是借用了新宝公司的资金与他人共同注册成立了宏冠公司。当时黄伟忠为新宝公司股东,并担任经理一职。宏冠公司注册完毕后,注册资金归还给了新宝公司,且宏冠公司未实际经营。在注册登记的股东及案外人的筹资下,拟购买工业园区土地。因当地政策限制,宏冠公司需增资后方能购买。黄伟忠陈述其也出资购买土地,显然其对需要增资是明知的。黄伟忠在股权转让过程中全权委托他人办理,现其以未在相关增资文件中签名来否认其知情显然不符合常理。
After a hearing of second instance, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality confirmed the fact finding in the hearing of first instance. 上海市第二中级人民法院经二审,确认了一审查明的事实。
After a hearing of second instance, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality held that: Hongguan Company was set up by the appellee, Huang Weizhong, jointly with the defendants in the first instance, Chen Qiangqing, Chen Lin, Zhang Yang, Gu Huiping, and Wang Xiuying and the appellee legally held 20% of equities of Hongguan Company in its setup. Under the premise that Huang Weizhong did not dispose of his equities, his shareholding ratio should not be reduced unless Hongguan Company had a legal capital increase. It was expressly stipulated in the articles of association of Hongguan Company that its capital increase should adopt the resolution of the shareholders' meeting. Upon identification, the scripts of “Huang Weizhong” on the resolutions of the shareholders' meetings of Hongguan Company and Xinbao Company were not Huang Weizhong's signatures. So, it could not be recognized on the basis of the written resolutions of the shareholders' meetings that Huang Weizhong knew the capital increase. There was no inevitable correlation between the land purchase by capital contribution and the Company's capital increase. Therefore, where there was no evidence to prove that Huang Weizhong knew the capital increase and he signed the resolution on the shareholders' meeting to approve Hongguan Company's capital increase to 15 million yuan, the act of capital increase was invalid for Hongguan Company's shareholders when it was set up, and it was not legally binding on Huang Weizhong. Huang Weizhong's shareholding ratio in Hongguan Company should not be reduced after the amount of Hongguan Company's registered capital was changed to 15 million yuan upon industrial and commercial registration; instead, Hongguan Company should still distribute its equities to Huang Weizhong according to the equity ratio of 20%. The original judgment was correct in the application of law, legitimate in the hearing procedure, and was not inappropriate to order that Huang Weizhong held 20% of Hongguan Company's equities during the period from the setup of the Company to the transfer of equities. 上海市第二中级人民法院二审认为:宏冠公司系被上诉人黄伟忠与一审被告陈强庆、陈琳、张洋、顾惠平、王秀英共同出资设立,设立时原告依法持有宏冠公司20%股权。在黄伟忠没有对其股权作出处分的前提下,除非宏冠公司进行了合法的增资,否则原告的持股比例不应当降低。宏冠公司的章程明确约定公司增资应由股东会作出决议。现经过笔迹鉴定,宏冠公司和新宝公司的股东会决议上均非黄伟忠本人签名,不能依据书面的股东会决议来认定黄伟忠知道增资的情况。出资买地与公司增资之间不具有必然的关联性。因此,在没有证据证明黄伟忠明知且在股东会上签名同意宏冠公司增资至1500万元的情况下,对宏冠公司设立时的股东内部而言,该增资行为无效,且对于黄伟忠没有法律约束力,不应以工商变更登记后的1500万元注册资本金额来降低黄伟忠在宏冠公司的持股比例,而仍旧应当依照20%的股权比例在股东内部进行股权分配。原审适用法律正确,审判程序合法,判决黄伟忠自设立后至股权转让前持有宏冠公司20%的股权并无不当。
In conclusion, in accordance with the provisions of item (1) of paragraph 1 of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, on April 11, 2013, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality rendered a judgment to: 综上,上海市第二中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十条第一款第(一)项之规定,于2013年4月11日判决如下:
Dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
This Judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
小词儿都挺能整 
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese