U.S. Mineral Metal Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Joint Development (Group) Co., Ltd.

美国矿产金属有限公司与厦门联合发展（集团）有限公司债务纠纷案

U.S. Mineral Metal Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Joint Development (Group) Co., Ltd.

(Case on Dispute over Company Debts)

Supreme People's Court

(Civil Judgment No. 4 [2004] of the Supreme People's Court)

Appellant (Plaintiff of the Original Instance): U.S. Mineral Metal Co., Ltd., domiciled in No. 120, Schor Road, Leonia, New Jersey, United States

Legal Representative: Liu Daojing, president of the Company

Authorized Agent: Li Zhiquan, lawyer of Beacon Law Firm

Authorized Agent: Chen Yaoquan, lawyer of Beacon Law Firm

Appellee (Defendant of the Original Instance): Xiamen Joint Development (Group) Co., Ltd., domiciled on No. 13 Huli Ave, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian Province, the People's Republic of China

Legal Representative: Wang Xianrong, president of the Company

Authorized Agent: Wu Xu, lawyer of Fujian Xiamen Xufeng Law Firm

U.S. Mineral Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the US Mineral Co., Ltd.) was dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment No. 031 [2003] of the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province on the case involving its dispute over debts with Xiamen Joint Development (Group) Co., Ltd. and filed an appeal with this Court. This Court has formed a collegiate bench comprised of Wang Yuan, as the presiding justice, Chen Jizhong and Zhou Xiang, as acting justices to hear this case. It has now been concluded.

It was found in the original instance that: On September 2, 1983, upon the approval of the People's Government of Fijian Province, a Joint Development Co., Ltd. of Xiamen Special Economic Zone was established by such three parties as the Construction and Development Co., Ltd. of Xiamen Special Economic Zone, the Trust Consulting Company of the Bank of China and 5 Hong Kong and Macao Banks (Hong Kong Chiyu Banking Corporation Limited, Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd., Nanyang Commercial Bank, Ltd., Po Sang Bank Hong Kong and Nam Tung Investment (Macau) Limited). The Administrative Bureaus for Industry and Commerce of Fujian Province verified and registered it on October 18 of the same year. The enterprise type is a joint venture, the registered capital is 0. 25 billion yuan. The equity proportion of the three parties is: 51% held by the Construction Development Co., Ltd. of Xiamen Special Economic Zone, 34% held by the Trust and Consulting Co., Ltd. of the Bank of China and 15% held by the 5 Hong Kong & Macao Banks. On May 14, 1993, the former Ministry of Economic and Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as the former Foreign Trade Ministry) approved, by an Approval Certificate No. 119 [1993], the alteration of the name into the Joint Development Co., Ltd. and issue an Approval Certificate of Foreign-funded Enterprise of the People's Republic of China thereto. On May 22 of the same year, the State Administration of Industry and Commerce approved the alteration of the enterprise name.

On June 14, 1986, the Joint Development Co., Ltd. of Xiamen Special Economic Zone, filed an application report to Xiamen Economic and Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for establishing a Xiemen Joint Development Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Co., Ltd.), which goes like: On October 30, 1984, since the Joint Co., Ltd. was established upon approval of your Commission by Document No. 097 [1984], it had made an export proceeds of 3. 3 million yuan in 1985. The business development goes on smoothly. Although the source of capital is allocated by the Joint Co., Ltd., there is no foreign capital contribution therein. In order to clarify the relationship of the joint venture and the enterprise owned by the whole people, we apply for the establishment of a Joint Development Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. that has an independent financial accounting and assumes the sole responsibility for its own incomes and expenditures as well as its profits and losses…” On June 16 of the same year, the Commission replied by a Document No. 625 [1986] to approve the establishment of a Joint Development in Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd.” owned by the whole people. On June 18 of the same year, it was verified and registered by Xiamen Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce and obtained a business license. On August 10, 1992, the former Foreign Trade Ministry approved the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to engage in the business operation of export and import. On August 31 of the same year, the Joint Co., Ltd. was altered into Xiamen Joint Development of Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Group) (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.). On December 13, 1998, the former Foreign Trade Ministry revoked the right to import and export of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. by a Document No. 1792. On July 5, 2001, Xiamen Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce served an administrative punishment on the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. for it failed to participate in the annual examination, and thus decided to revoke its business license.

It was also found that, during August, September and October of 1992, the US Mineral Co., Ltd. and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. concluded 9 contracts, stipulating that the US Mineral Co., Ltd shall sell to the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. 2, 000 tons of aluminum ingots and 5, 000 tons of electrolytic copper. The Joint Trade Co., Ltd. failed to pay off the total goods price in a timely manner after receiving the goods, the US Mineral Co., Ltd. then applied on October 6, 1994 for arbitration with China International Business and Trade Arbitration Commission according to the arbitration clause in the Contract. On November 6, 1995, China International Business and Trade Arbitration Commission made an arbitration that the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall refund, before January 30, 1996, US $ 7, 495, 343. 4 to the US Mineral Co., Ltd. and the overdue interests, if any, shall be calculated in light of 8 % the annual interests. After the arbitration comes into force, the US Mineral Co., Ltd. immediately applied with Xiamen Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province for coercive enforcement. As the party under enforcement ran at a gross loss and thus had no assets for execution, Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, Fujian Province ruled to suspend the execution on November 23, 1998.

On November 7, 2003, the US Mineral Co., Ltd. filed an action with the court of the original instance, pleading with the court to order the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to bear the joint and several liabilities of debts of US $ 7, 495, 343. 4 as well as the interests calculated in light of 8 % the annual interest rate from February 1, 1992 to the day of actual payment.

The court of the original instance found through hearing that: This case is mainly concerned with the issue on whether or not the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is qualified as the subject to bear the debt. As the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is a domestic legal person and both parties did not choose to select any foreign law for application, therefore the law of the People's Republic of China shall be the applicable law to solve the dispute in this case.

According to the General Principles of the People's Republic of China as well as the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, a limited liabilities company is an enterprise legal person, an organization that has the capacity for civil rights and capacity for civil conducts and enjoys the civil rights and civil obligations. Therefore, whether the plaintiff of this case is qualified or not, and whether the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall bear the joint and several liabilities for its debts, depends on whether or not the Joint Trade Co., Ltd is a qualified enterprise legal person. It is found that Xiamen Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce and the Commission, according to the application of the defendant, approved the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to engage in import and export. On June 18 of the same year, it was verified and registered by Xiamen Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce to be an enterprise owned by the whole people that assumes the sole responsibility for its own incomes and expenditures as well as its profits and losses, and collected its enterprise business license. Afterwards, the former Foreign Trade Ministry replied and approved the internal and external import and export business of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. and issued a Qualification Certificate of Import and Export Enterprises. Therefore, from the archival materials of industrial and commercial enterprises, when the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. conducted an international trade with the plaintiff, it has been verified and registered by the relevant state organ and thus obtained the qualification for an enterprise legal person that shall independently assume the civil liabilities. As to the issue on whether the defendant can, as a joint venture at that time, apply for establishing an import & export company owned by the whole people (the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.), the plaintiff deemed that the defendant is a joint venture that is not entitled to establish any import & export enterprise owned by the whole people. The defendant adopted the means of fraud to cheat for the approval document of the administrative department and thus it was not established on any legal ground, so the people's court shall not confirm the legal person qualification thereof. The defendant deemed that although it is registered as a joint venture, the contribution of the foreign party fails to reach 25% of what has been prescribed by law and is made in foreign exchange. The shareholders thereof are all Chinese. Therefore, the administrative department determined the nature of Joint Trade Co., Ltd. as a joint venture that can enjoy the relevant treatment for a joint venture. However, it is not a joint venture in nature, so it is legal for the administrative department to determine its nature as an enterprise owned by the whole people, which complied with the state policies at that time. Furthermore, the enterprise nature does not affect the assumption of liabilities by a legal person enterprise. Therefore, the court held that it shall be verified by the administrative department of the state according to the relevant laws and policies for examination and approval whether the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. can be established. If the plaintiff has any different opinion on the administrative act of the former administrative department to approve the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., it may be solved according to the administrative procedures. There is no relevant evidence to prove that the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. concealed any true fact or cheated the administrative department and there is no false capital contribution or spiriting-away of capital to disqualify its qualification for a legal person. Therefore, the Joint Co., Ltd. had no fault in applying for establishing the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. and thus shall not bear any civil liabilities for the Joint Trade Co., Ltd..

In conclusion, the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is an enterprise legal person that had been verified and registered by the administrative department and thus shall bear the civil liabilities. The Joint Co., Ltd. and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. are two legal independent subjects and thus there is no fault in the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. So the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. may not therefore bear the joint and several liabilities of compensation according to law. There is no relevant evidence to support the allegation of the US Mineral Co., Ltd. and thus its claim shall be revoked according to law. This court, according to Paragraph 1, Article 36 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China, Article 3 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China and Paragraph 1, Article 64 of the Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, adjudicated that: the litigation claim of the US Mineral Co., Ltd. shall be rejected. The case acceptance fee of 320, 317. 22 yuan shall be borne by the US Mineral Co., Ltd.

The US Mineral Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied with the judgment of the original instance and filed an appeal with this Court, alleging that: 1. The confirmation of facts in the original instance is wrong. (1) It was confirmed in the original instance that “The appellant had no fault in establishing the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.” whereas in fact the appellant had obvious fault in the course of establishment. A) According to the relevant provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Sino-foreign equity joint venture enterprises, Sino-foreign contractual joint venture enterprises, and wholly foreign-funded enterprises, an enterprise owned by the whole people is totally different from any of the aforesaid three types in terms of enterprise nature, establishment subject, source and nature of assets as well as the requirements for establishment. None of the aforesaid 3 types of enterprises may represent the state, or be on behalf of the state, to invest to establish an enterprise owned by the whole people. Any wholly-funded subsidiary company established by re-investment is, merely by nature, any of the aforesaid 3 enterprise types. Whereas, the appellee, as a joint venture, established an “enterprise owned by the whole people” named the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., it obviously went against Article 37 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China, which prescribes that a legal person shall be “legally established”. (2) The appellee cheated the administrative department in its application that there was no “foreign shares”, and thus obtained an approval from the administrative department, this was an act of establishing an enterprise by means of fraud and thus was seriously illegal. (3) The appellee violated the relevant provisions of China by illegally establishing the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to engage in the import and export, which has injured the foreign trade administration system as well as foreign investment administration system. So it was seriously unlawful for the appellee to establish a Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. (4) The former Foreign Trade Ministry specially distributed a document on 1998, clarifying that: According to the relevant provisions on foreign investment in force, the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall not establish any import & export subsidiary company”, and revoked the right to import and export in foreign trade, which indicated that the approval document of the Commission for the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. was wrong, and that the appellee actually cheated for the approval document of the administrative department by means of fraud and thereafter upon the strength of the approval document, it denied its illegal act and shifted off its due liabilities. 2. It is wrong for the judgment of the original instance to confirm that the appellee “did not have any false capital contribution” of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. In the registration materials of industry and commerce of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., there are altogether 3 copies of materials proving that the registered capital had been fully contributed by the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., namely, the Credit Certification produced by the Commission on June 17, 1986 proving that the registered capital of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is 5 million yuan, a Verification Report on Registered Capital produced by Xiamen Accounting Firm on May 9, 1989 proving that the registered capital of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is 1 million yuan. The appellee allocated the current capital on May 16, 1987, and Xiamen Public Finance Bureau produced a notice to the Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce of Xiamen Municipality in October, 1990, indicating that the actual registered capital of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is 1 million yuan. So, the description of the registered capital of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. is self-contradictory. The aforesaid 3 materials cannot function as the basis to confirm that the appellee had fully contributed the capital. If the appellee failed to provide the relevant original credence produced by the bank to verify it, it shall be deemed that the appellee did not make any contribution of registered capital to the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. According to the Document No. 4 [1994] of the Supreme People's Court, the appellee shall bear all the liabilities for the debts involved in this case. 2. The application of law is wrong in the original instance. (1) The establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. was illegal, so it was not an independent legal person and thus cannot bear any external liabilities independently. (2) The illegal establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall be invalid from the very beginning and thus the appellee shall bear all the liabilities to the appellant. (3) The Joint Trade Co., Ltd. was established by the appellee for illegal purposes and by illegal means, which has violated the social public interests and social economic order, so it shall be invalid from the very beginning and the appellee shall bear all the liabilities for the debts involved in this case. 3. When the appellee applied for the execution of arbitration, the Intermediate People's Court of Xiamen, Fujian Province entrusted Xiamen Jingxian Accounting Firm to conduct an auditing on the collection of the goods price of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. The Special Auditing Report No. 01723 [2003] produced by Jingxian Accounting Firm on February 11, 2003 indicated that, the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. had collected most of the goods price involved in this case, yet failed to give any explanation on the use of the collected goods price. The deputy manager of the board of directors of the appellee concurrently held the post of legal person of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., therefore, the appellee was actually controlled by the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. The Business License of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. had been revoked and in such a case the appellee failed to explain the use of the collected goods price, the appellant deemed that the collected goods price had been illegally transferred by the appellee. Furthermore, the appellant had no assess to know whether there was any mix-up of assets or accounts between the appellee and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. Therefore, the appellant pleaded with the court of the second instance to conduct another auditing on the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., pleading that: (1) The judgment of the original instance shall be revoked. 2. The court shall adjudicate according to law that the appellee shall pay US $7, 495, 343. 40 as well as the relevant interests of 8% the annual interests from February 1, 1996 to the day of actual payment; 3. The appellee shall bear the cost of actions of the first and second instances, expenses for auditing and other expenses.

The Joint Trade Co., Ltd. argued that: 1. The establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. Complied with the legal procedures and thus it shall bear the civil liabilities independently to the outside. After the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. was established, its business operation as well as the alteration of its name were confirmed by the former Foreign Trade Ministry. The debts and credits between the appellant and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall be borne by both parties concerned and had nothing to do with other companies. The establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. did not violate the spirit of the Supreme People's Court on the Assumption of Civil Liabilities of Any Other Sub-enterprise upon Cancellation or Suspension. 2. The Joint Co., Ltd. and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. are two independent enterprise legal persons and the Joint Co., Ltd. had no fault in establishing the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., so it may not assume the joint and several liabilities of compensation for the debts of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. What's more, the appellant had no evidential evidence to prove that the Joint Co., Ltd. had any fault. Even if the former Foreign Trade Ministry revoked the right of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to business operation, it did not deny its qualification for an enterprise legal person. As long as the company is not written off according to law, its qualification for enterprise legal person is still in force, that would not affect the assumption of the civil liabilities thereof. It pleaded with the court: to revoke the appeal and affirm the judgment of the original instance.

The US Mineral Co., Ltd. had no material different opinion on the facts as confirmed by the court of the original instance and merely had a different opinion on the application of law. Therefore, the court confirms the facts as confirmed by the court of the original instance.

This court found through hearing that:

1. As to the application of law in the dispute of this case

There is no direct legal relationship between both parties concerned in this case. The US Mineral Co., Ltd. filed an action on the debts as involved in this case based on its relationship of debts and credits with the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. as well as on the fact that the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. was established by the Joint Co., Ltd.. According to the principle of the closest relationship of the Private International Law, and because the Joint Co., Ltd. is a Chinese legal person, the dispute involved in this case shall be governed by the Law of the People's Republic of China. Both parties concerned had no different opinion in this regard.

2. As to whether the Joint Co., Ltd. shall bear the joint and several liabilities of debts owed by the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. to the US Mineral Co., Ltd.

The creditor's right, on which the US Mineral Co., Ltd. filed an action in this case, was generated from the Sales and Purchase Contract between it and the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. and the contractual dispute had been ruled through arbitration. There is no direct contractual relationship between the US Mineral Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Joint Trade Co., Ltd. (relationship of credits and debts), the major ground for the US Mineral Co., Ltd. to file an action in this case is that the Joint Co., Ltd. had illegally established the Joint Trade Co., Ltd..

Paragraph 1, Article 36 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China prescribes: “A legal person shall be an organization that has the capacity for civil rights and capacity for civil conduct and independently enjoys civil rights and assumes civil obligations in accordance with the law.” Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China prescribes: “For a limited liability company, a shareholder shall be liable to the company to the extent of the capital contributions it has paid. For a joint stock limited company, a shareholder shall be liable to the company to the extent of the shares it has subscribed.” The purpose of the US Mineral Co., Ltd. is to deny the company legal person status of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. The nature of a shareholder's act in abusing the company legal person and injuring the interests of the company as well as of the creditors thereof in a disguised veil, includes any transfer of assets, evasion of debts, establishment of a new company by its assets or spiriting-away of capital upon establishment of the new company or mix-up of the company assets and the assets of shareholders or random intervention of the shareholders into the company business which makes the right to business operation cease to exist except in name, etc. As to the administrative system of company registration, China determined the applicable scope of limited liabilities through the enterprise registration in the administrative departments for industry and commerce. As to an enterprise that has been registered as a legal person, the establisher or investor shall only be responsible for liabilities. With regard to the company management, when the administrative department for industry and commerce makes registration of an enterprise legal person, it cannot make any material or strict examination on whether an enterprise meets the requirements for legal person. To prevent any abuse of limited liabilities, the form factors are not enough and the material factors are required. In this case, the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. as well as the alteration of the registered capital were both approved by the administrative department. What's more, the US Co., Ltd. traded for 6 years after the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. Therefore, there is no factual evidence to deny the company status of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd..

As to the issue regarding the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Assumption of Civil Liabilities of Enterprises upon Cancellation or Suspension, item (2), Article 1 of the Reply prescribes: “Where any sub-enterprise of an enterprise has collected the Business License of Enterprise Legal Person, if the self-owned capital that it has actually invested is inconsistent with the registered capital, yet it has reached the amount prescribed in Item (7), Article 15 of the Detailed Rules for Implementing the Administration and Registration of Enterprises of the People's Republic of China according to the relevant laws and the other requirements for an enterprise legal person are satisfied, it shall be deemed that it meets the requirements for the enterprise legal person qualification and shall bear the civil liabilities based on its assets. Yet if, after the enterprise is canceled or suspended, the assets are not enough to pay off the liabilities, the enterprise shall assume the civil liabilities within the scope of balance between the self-owned capital that the enterprise has actually contributed and its registered capital”. Item (3), Article 1 prescribes: “Where any other enterprise collects the Business License for Enterprise Legal Person, yet if it fails to contribute any self-owned capital, or if the self-owned capital as contributed fails to reach the amount as prescribed in item (7), Article 15 of the Detailed Rules for Implementing the Administration and Registration of Enterprises of the People's Republic of China, or fails to meet any other requirement for enterprise legal person, the civil liabilities shall be borne by the enterprise legal person that has established the enterprise.” As to the nature, only when the registered capital of an enterprise legal person is insufficient or in the absence of capital contribution shall the enterprise legal person assume the civil liabilities within the scope of insufficient registered capital or all the civil liabilities. Whereas this specific case does not comply with the circumstance prescribed in the aforesaid provisions.

As to the Plea of the US Mineral Co., Ltd. to conduct an auditing on the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. the US Mineral Co., Ltd., based on its subjective presumption, requested to conduct a financial auditing, which lacks factual or legal basis and thus shall not be supported by the court.

In conclusion, even if there is any defect in the establishment of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd., the US Mineral Co., Ltd. failed to provide enough evidences to deny the company status of the Joint Trade Co., Ltd.. The claim of the US Mineral Co., Ltd. that the Joint Trade Co., Ltd. shall bear the joint and several liabilities lacks factual or legal basis and thus shall not be supported by this Court. The facts are clear and the judgment is correct in the original instance and thus it shall be affirmed. This Court adjudicated as follows according to Item (1), Paragraph 1, Article 153 of the Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China:

The appeal shall be revoked and the original judgment shall be affirmed.

The case acceptance fee of the second instance is 320, 317. 22 yuan, and it shall be borne by the US Mineral Co., Ltd.

This judgment shall be final.

Presiding Justice: Wang Yun

Acting Justice: Chen Jizhong

Acting Justice: Zhou Xiang

January 4, 2005

Clerk: Fu Xiaoqiang (acting)

美国矿产金属有限公司与厦门联合发展（集团）有限公司债务纠纷案

【裁判摘要】
　　经国家主管部门核准登记的具有法人资格的企业，依法应当独立承担民事责任。确定该企业的开办单位是否应当对该企业的债务承担民事责任，应严格审查开办单位对该企业的出资情况以及开办单位有无抽逃该企业注册资本、有无恶意转移该企业财产等情形。开办单位在上述方面无过错的，不应对该企业的债务承担连带赔偿责任。

中华人民共和国最高人民法院
民事判决书

（2004）民四终字第4号

　　上诉人（原审原告）：美国矿产金属有限公司。
　　法定代表人：刘道经，该公司总裁。
　　委托代理人：李志泉，北京市贝格律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人：陈耀权，北京市天同律师事务所律师。
　　被上诉人（原审被告）：厦门联合发展（集团）有限公司。
　　法定代表人：王宪榕，该公司董事长。
　　委托代理人：吴旭，福建厦门旭丰律师事务所律师。
　　
　　上诉人美国矿产金属有限公司（以下简称美国矿产公司）因与被上诉人厦门联合发展（集团）有限公司（以下简称厦门联发公司）债务纠纷一案，不服福建省高级人民法院（以下简称原审法院）（2003）闽经初字第031号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员王玧担任审判长，代理审判员陈纪忠、周翔参加评议的合议庭进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。
　　原审查明：1983年9月2日，经福建省人民政府批准，厦门经济特区建设发展公司、中国银行总行信托咨询公司和五家港澳银行（香港集友银行、香港华侨商业银行、香港南洋商业银行、香港宝生银行、澳门南通信托投资有限公司）三方合资设立厦门经济特区联合发展有限公司，福建省工商行政管理局于同年10月18日核准登记，企业类型为中外合资经营企业，注册资本为2.5亿万元人民币，三方的股权比例为：厦门经济特区建设发展公司占51％，中国银行总行信托咨询公司占34％，五家港澳银行占15％。1993年5月14日，原对外贸易经济合作部（以下简称原外经贸部）以外经贸资审字（1993）119号批准证书批准其更名为厦门联发公司并办理了中华人民共和国外商投资企业批准证书，同年5月22日国家工商行政管理局核准其名称变更登记。
　　1986年6月14日，厦门经济特区联合发展有限公司向福建省厦门市经济贸易委员会（以下简称厦门经贸委）提出成立厦门联发进出口贸易公司的申请报告，报告主要内容为：“1984年10月30日业经你委厦经贸（1984）097号文件批准成立厦门联发进出口贸易有限公司以来，1985年出口创汇330万美元。业务开展正常。资金来源虽由联发公司拨款，但没有外资股份参加，为了澄清中外合资企业与全民所有制企业的关系，特申请成立‘厦门联发进出口贸易公司’，属全民所有制性质，实行独立核算，自负盈亏……。”同年6月16日，厦门经贸委以厦经贸商（1986）625号批复，同意成立全民所有制性质的“厦门联发进出口贸易公司”。同年6月18日，经厦门市工商行政管理局核准登记并颁发了营业执照。1992年8月10日，原外经贸部批复同意厦门联发进出口贸易公司经营省内外进出口业务。同年8月31日取得部颁的进出口企业资格证书。1993年10月12日，经原外经贸部批复同意，厦门联发进出口贸易公司更名为厦门联发（集团）进出口贸易公司（以下简称联发贸易公司）。1998年12月13日，原外经贸部以[1998]外经贸政审函字第1792号文撤销联发贸易公司的进出口经营权。2001年7月5日，厦门市工商行政管理局以未按规定参加年检为由向联发贸易公司公告送达行政处罚，决定对其予以吊销营业执照的行政处罚。
　　另查明：1992年8、9、10月间，美国矿产公司与联发贸易公司签订了九份合同，由美国矿产公司向联发贸易公司出售2，000吨铝锭和5，000吨电解铜，联发贸易公司收到货物后未及时依约付清全部货款，美国矿产公司遂依据合同中的仲裁条款于1994年10月6日向中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会申请仲裁。1995年11月6日，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会作出裁决，裁决联发贸易公司应于1996年1月30日前归还美国矿产公司7，495，343.40美元，逾期利息按年息8％计算。裁决生效后，美国矿产公司即向福建省厦门市中级人民法院申请强制执行，因被执行人经营严重亏损，无可供执行的财产，福建省厦门市中级人民法院于1998年11月23日裁定中止执行。
　　2003年11月7日，美国矿产公司向原审法院提起诉讼，请求厦门联发公司对联发贸易公司所欠的7，495，343.40美元以及自1992年2月1日至实际支付日按年息8％计算的利息的债务承担连带责任。
　　原审法院审理认为：本案主要涉及厦门联发公司作为债务承担的主体是否适格的问题，因厦门联发公司为我国境内法人，双方当事人亦无选择适用外国法，因此应适用中华人民共和国法律作为解决本案纠纷的准据法。
　　依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》和《中华人民共和国公司法》的有关规定，有限责任公司为企业法人，企业法人是具有民事权利能力和民事行为能力，依法独立享有民事权利承担民事义务的组织。因此本案被告是否适格，应否为联发贸易公司所欠原告债务承担连带赔偿责任问题，取决于联发贸易公司是否具备企业法人资格。经查厦门市工商行政管理局，1986年6月16日，依被告申请，厦门经贸委批准成立联发贸易公司经营进出口业务，同年6月18日，经厦门市工商行政管理局核准登记为全民所有制性质、独立核算、自负盈亏的企业，并领取企业法人营业执照。此后原外经贸部于1992年8月批复同意该公司经营省内外进出口业务，并颁发进出口企业资格证书。因此，从工商企业档案材料看，联发贸易公司与原告进行国际货物贸易往来时，其已经国家有关部门核准登记，取得企业法人资格，应依法独立对外承担民事责任。至于被告作为中外合资经营企业依当时的法律法规能否申请成立全民所有制性质的进出口公司（联发贸易公司）问题，原告认为被告系合资企业性质，其不能设立全民所有制性质的进出口企业，被告对此采取欺骗的手段骗取主管部门的批文，系非法设立，人民法院应对其法人资格不予认定；被告认为其虽然登记为中外合资经营企业，但因外方投资比例不到法律规定的25％，且以外汇投入，股东全系由中方组成，基于此，主管部门只是将其视为合资企业，享受合资企业待遇，实质上不是合资企业，因此主管部门将联发贸易公司定性为全民所有制企业是合法的，也是符合当时的国家政策的，同时企业性质不影响企业法人责任承担方式。对此，该院认为，对被告企业性质的认定及依当时的法律政策被告能否设立联发贸易公司，应由国家有关行政主管部门依当时法律政策批准核定，原告若对当时主管部门批准设立联发贸易公司的行政行为有异议，可依照行政诉讼程序另案解决。本案中作为被告的厦门联发公司在申请设立联发贸易公司过程中，并无证据表明存在隐瞒真实情况，欺骗主管部门的情形，也不存在注册资金不实及日后抽逃资本等可予否认其法人人格的情况，因此被告厦门联发公司在申请设立联发贸易公司的过程中并无过错，依法不应为联发贸易公司的行为承担民事责任。
　　综上，联发贸易公司系经主管部门核准登记的企业法人，依法应独立对外承担民事责任。厦门联发公司与联发贸易公司系两个独立的法人实体，其在设立联发贸易公司的过程中亦无过错，依法不应为联发贸易公司的债务承担连带赔偿责任。美国矿产公司的诉求无证据支持，依法应予驳回。该院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第三十六条第一款、《中华人民共和国公司法》第三条、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第六十四条第一款之规定，判决：驳回美国矿产公司的诉讼请求。案件受理费320，317.22元人民币，由美国矿产公司负担。
　　美国矿产公司不服原审判决，向本院提起上诉称：一、原审判决认定事实错误。1.原审判决认定被上诉人在“设立联发贸易公司的过程中无过错”，而事实上被上诉人在设立联发贸易公司过程中的过错十分明显。（1）依据中国三资企业法的有关规定，全民所有制企业与三资企业在企业性质、设立的主体、财产来源和性质以及设立的条件上是截然不同的，三资企业不可能作为国家或代表国家投资设立全民所有制企业，其再投资设立的全资子公司只能是三资企业性质，而作为中外合资经营企业的被上诉人竟然设立了“全民所有制性质”的联发贸易公司，显然违反了《中华人民共和国民法通则》第三十七条关于法人应当“依法成立”的规定。（2）被上诉人在向主管机关申请设立联发贸易公司时谎称“没有外资股份”，骗取了主管机关的审核批准，属于采用欺诈手段设立企业，是严重的违法行为。（3）被上诉人违反我国有关规定、非法设立联发贸易公司经营进出口贸易侵害了我国的外贸管理制度和外资管理制度，被上诉人设立联发贸易公司的目的严重违法。（4）原外经贸部1998年专门下文，明确指出“根据我国现行的有关外资法规，厦门联发公司不能下设进出口贸易子公司”，并撤销了联发贸易公司的外贸进出口业务经营权，说明厦门经贸委同意设立联发贸易公司的批文是错误的，而被上诉人实质是通过欺诈手段骗取了主管部门的批文，随后又以主管部门已批准为由来否认其自身行为的违法性和推卸应承担的责任。2.原审判决认定被上诉人对联发贸易公司“不存在注册资金不实”的情形是错误的。在联发贸易公司的工商登记材料中，先后有三份材料证明联发贸易公司的注册资金到位情况，即厦门经贸委于1986年6月17日出具的《资信证明》证实联发贸易公司注册资金500万元人民币、厦门会计师事务所于1989年5月9日出具的《注册资金验证报告》证明联发贸易公司注册资本为100万元人民币且由被上诉人于1987年5月16日以流动资金拨入、厦门市财政局于1990年10月向厦门市工商行政管理局出具的便函称联发贸易公司实有资金100万元人民币。可见，联发贸易公司对其注册资金来源的表述是前后矛盾的，不能以上述三份材料为据来认定被上诉人对联发贸易公司的注册资金是到位的。如被上诉人不能出具银行原始凭证予以证实，应认定被上诉人对联发贸易公司实际上并无注册资金投入。根据最高人民法院法复（1994）4号文之规定，被上诉人应对本案债务承担全部责任。二、原审判决适用法律错误。1.联发贸易公司系违法设立，不具备独立法人的条件、不能独立对外承担责任。2.被上诉人违法设立联发贸易公司的行为自始无效，依法应当对上诉人承担全部责任。3.被上诉人基于非法目的、通过非法手段设立联发贸易公司的行为违反了中国公共利益和社会经济秩序，被上诉人设立联发贸易公司的行为自始无效，依法应对本案债务承担全部责任。三、在上诉人申请执行仲裁裁决时，福建省厦门市中级人民法院委托厦门敬贤联合会计师事务所对联发贸易公司的货款收回情况进行了审计，该会计师事务所于2003年2月11日出具的厦贤会（2003）审字第01723号《专项审计报告》表明，联发贸易公司已收回涉案业务项下的绝大部分货款，但并未对已收回的货款去向作任何说明。被上诉人的董事副总经理兼任联发贸易公司的法定代表人，从而被上诉人对联发贸易公司存在事实上的控制，而联发贸易公司已被吊销营业执照，在被上诉人不能对已收回的货款去向作出合理说明的情况下，上诉人认为收回的货款已被被上诉人非法转移。此外，上诉人现在无法得知被上诉人与联发贸易公司间是否存在财产、帐户混同的其他情形。故上诉人请求二审法院对联发贸易公司重新进行财务审计。请求：1.撤销原审判决；2.依法判令被上诉人向上诉人支付7 495 343.40美元及该款从1996年2月1日起至实际支付日止按年利率8％计算的利息；3.由被上诉人承担一、二审诉讼费用、审计费用和其他费用。
　　厦门联发公司答辩称：一、联发贸易公司的成立符合法律程序，依法应当独立对外承担民事责任。联发贸易公司成立后，其经营权及随后的更名，均由原外经贸部确认，上诉人与联发贸易公司之间发生的债权债务应由该两公司享受和承担，与其它公司无关。联发贸易公司的设立，亦不违反最高人民法院《关于企业开办的其他企业被撤销或歇业后民事责任承担问题的批复》的精神。二、厦门联发公司与联发贸易公司系两个独立的企业法人实体，厦门联发公司在设立联发贸易公司的过程中并无过错，依法不应为联发贸易公司的债务承担连带赔偿责任。而且，上诉人主张厦门联发公司有过错并无任何证据证明。即使原外经贸部作出撤销联发贸易公司的经营权，也未否定联发贸易公司的企业法人资格，只要公司未依法注销，企业法人资格依然存在，并不影响其民事责任的承担。请求：驳回上诉，维持原判。
　　上诉人美国矿产公司对于原审判决查明的事实并无实质性的异议，只是对如何适用法律提出了异议。因此，本院确认原审判决查明的事实。
　　本院经审理认为：
　　一、关于本案纠纷的法律适用问题
　　本案双方当事人之间并不存在直接的法律关系，美国五矿公司是依据其与联发贸易公司之间的债权债务关系以及联发贸易公司是由厦门联发公司设立的事实对厦门联发公司提起了本案债务纠纷诉讼。根据国际私法的最密切联系原则，由于厦门联发公司是中国法人，因此本案债务纠纷应适用中华人民共和国法律进行处理。双方当事人对此无异议。
　　二、关于厦门联发公司应否就联发贸易公司对美国矿产公司的债务承担连带责任问题
　　美国矿产公司提起本案诉讼的债权产生于其与联发贸易公司之间的购销合同，该合同纠纷已经经过仲裁裁决。美国矿产公司与厦门联发公司之间并没有直接的合同关系（债权债务关系），美国矿产公司提起本案诉讼的主要理由是厦门联发公司违法设立了联发贸易公司。
　　《中华人民共和国民法通则》第三十六条第一款规定：法人是具有民事权利和民事行为能力，依法独立享有民事权利和承担民事义务的组织。《中华人民共和国公司法》第三条第二款规定：有限责任公司，股东以其出资额为限对公司承担责任，公司以其全部资产对公司的债务承担责任。美国矿产公司提起本案诉讼的实质是要否认联发贸易公司的公司人格。股东滥用公司人格、利用有限责任的面纱侵犯公司及其债权人利益的实质，包括转移财产、逃避债务并以其财产成立新公司，或者新公司成立后抽逃资本，或者将公司财产与股东财产混同，或者股东任意干预公司的事务使公司的经营自主权名存实亡，等等。在对公司登记的管理体制上，中国主要是通过工商行政管理部门的企业登记来确定有限责任的适用范围。凡登记为法人的企业，其设立者或者投资人只对企业的债务负有限责任。从公司管理角度看，工商行政管理部门在进行企业法人登记时，无法对所有被申请设立的企业是否具备法人条件进行实质的、严格的审查。防止有限责任被滥用，仅凭形式要件是不够的，还需要具备实质要件。从本案的实际情况看，联发贸易公司的设立过程以及注册资本的变更均经过了政府主管部门的批准，美国矿产公司并没有证据证明厦门联发公司转移财产恶意逃债的事实存在，也没有证据证明厦门联发公司有抽逃资本的事实存在。况且，美国矿产公司是在联发贸易公司成立六年后与联发贸易公司进行的贸易行为。因此，否认联发贸易公司的公司人格缺乏事实依据。
　　关于本院法复[1994]4号《关于企业开办的其他企业被撤销或者歇业后民事责任承担问题的批复》的问题，该批复第一条第2项规定“企业开办的其他企业已经领取了企业法人营业执照，其实际投入的自有资金虽与注册资金不符，但达到了《中华人民共和国企业法人登记管理条例实施细则》第十五条第（七）项或者其他有关法规规定的数额，并且具备了企业法人其他条件的，应当认定其具备法人资格，以其财产独立承担民事责任。但如果该企业被撤销或者歇业后，其财产不足以清偿债务的，开办企业应当在该企业实际投入的自有资金与注册资金差额范围内承担民事责任”；第一条第3项规定“企业开办的其他企业虽然领取了企业法人营业执照，但实际没有投入自有资金，或者投入的自有资金达不到《中华人民共和国企业法人登记管理条例施行细则》第十五条第（七）项或其他有关法规规定的数额，或者不具备企业法人的其他条件的，应当认定其不具备法人资格，其民事责任由开办该企业的企业法人承担”。究其实质，只有在开办该企业的企业法人注资不足或没有注资时，开办该企业的企业法人才在注资不足的范围内承担民事责任或承担全部民事责任。而本案并不符合上述规定的情形。
　　关于美国矿产公司请求对联发贸易公司进行财务审计的问题。美国矿产公司依据其主观推测要求对并非本案纠纷当事人的联发贸易公司进行财务审计没有事实和法律依据，本院亦不予支持。
　　综上，即使联发贸易公司在设立过程中存在某些瑕疵，但美国矿产公司不能提供足够的证据否认联发贸易公司的公司人格。美国矿产公司关于厦门联发公司应对联发贸易公司的债务承担连带赔偿责任的诉讼请求缺乏事实和法律依据，本院不予支持。原审判决认定事实清楚，判决结果正确，应予维持。本院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三第一款第（一）项之规定，判决如下：
　　驳回上诉，维持原判。
　　二审案件受理费320 317.22元人民币，由美国五矿公司承担。
　　本判决为终审判决。

审　判　长：　　王　玧　
代理审判员：　　陈纪忠　
代理审判员：　　周　翔　
二○○五年 一 月 四 日　
书　记　员：傅晓强(代)