法学家 ›› 2026, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (2): 174-188.

• 专论 • 上一篇    

董事辞任、解任与留任规则的释义学展开——以《公司法》第70、71条为中心

陈畅   

  • 出版日期:2026-03-15 发布日期:2026-03-23
  • 作者简介:*陈畅,法学博士,清华大学法学院助理研究员。

A Hermeneutic Analysis of the Rules Governing Director Resignation,Dismissal, and Retention:Focusing on Articles 70 and 71 of the Company Law

CHEN Chang   

  • Online:2026-03-15 Published:2026-03-23
  • About author:Chen Chang, Ph.D. in Law, Assistant Researcher of Tsinghua University Law School.

摘要: 董事与公司间法律关系构造,应采“双层法律关系”说:机关性法律关系与基础性委托合同关系并存,二者性质不同,功能各异,不能混淆。主流的委托合同关系说试图以单一关系涵盖所有内容,在理论上存在诸多难以圆通的矛盾。董事辞任与解任属于机关性法律关系范畴。《公司法》第70条第3款与第71条第1款确立的辞任与解任无因性规则,其正当性基础均在于机关关系的内在逻辑,而非委托合同的任意解除权。无因性规则在董事辞任方面不宜理解为任意法规范,在董事解任方面可为任意法规范。第71条第2款实质上属于引用性法条,董事的赔偿请求权基础在于委托合同违约责任,而非组织法规范。第70条第2款规定的董事强制留任制度存在理论构造不清、实践效果不佳等问题,有必要增设公司补任新董事的期限规则,并辅以董事备案信息涤除制度来予以完善。而要整体思考董事会法定人数不足问题的解决路径,除董事留任制度外,比较法上的紧急指定董事措施与备任董事制度,具有立法论上的参考价值。

关键词: 董事辞任与解任, 董事留任, 机关性法律关系, 基础性合同关系, 双层法律关系

Abstract: The legal relationship between a director and the company should be construed under the “dual legal relationship” theory: an organic legal relationship coexists with a foundational contractual relationship, each differing in nature and function, and should not be conflated.The mainstream theory of the contract of mandate, which attempts to encompass all aspects within a single relationship, presents numerous theoretical inconsistencies that are difficult to reconcile.The director resignation and dismissal fall within the scope of the organic legal relationship.The rules establishing that resignation and dismissal can be “without cause”(as provided in Article 70 (3) and Article 71 (1) of the Company Law) are justified by the inherent logic of the organic relationship, not by the right to terminate a mandate contract at will.The rule allowing resignation without cause should not be interpreted as a default norm, whereas the rule allowing dismissal without cause can be considered a default norm.Article 71 (2) is essentially a referential legal provision; the basis for a director's claim for compensation lies in the breach of the contract of mandate, not in organizational law norms.The mandatory retention system for directors stipulated in Article 70 (2) suffers from theoretical ambiguities and poor practical outcomes.It is necessary to introduce rules specifying a time limit for the company to appoint new directors, supplemented by a system for the removal of registered director information, to improve the mandatory retention system.To holistically address the issue of insufficient statutory number of board members, aside from the director retention system, comparative law measures such as the emergency appointment of directors and alternate director systems offer valuable insights for legislative consideration.

Key words: Director Resignation and Dismissal, Director Retention, Organic Legal Relationship, Foundational Contractual Relationship, Dual Legal Relationship