摘要： 《公司法司法解释(征求意见稿)》确定的法人人格否认程序模式存在可能诱发司法资源过耗、不当增加维权成本与削弱债权实现实效等内在局限。比较法视域下,法人人格否认程序模式可划分为原则性执行追加、绝对化诉讼前置与原则性诉讼前置三类,其形成是特定经济社会背景与制度框架交互耦合的结果:市场结构奠定宏观基础,审执关系定位搭建制度框架,立法传统则塑造路径依赖。立足我国制度语境,应构建“诉讼前置为原则、执行追加为例外”的本土程序模式。该模式的合理性源于市场结构内生的程序效率需要、审执分离改革预留的程序空间,以及成文法对法安定性的追求。在程序保障框架下,应以类型化路径细化适用标准:一人公司人格混同、法人明显缺乏清偿能力且股东未足额出资、公司未经清算即注销等实体责任清晰、证据充分的情形,可在执行程序中直接追加股东为被执行人,而股东抽逃出资、过度支配控制公司等情形,则应恪守诉讼前置要求,不得在执行阶段径行追加。

关键词: 法人人格否认, 程序模式, 追加股东, 审执分离

Abstract: The model of the piercing the corporate veil procedure established by the new judicial interpretation has inherent limitations that may lead to excessive consumption of judicial resources, unduly increase the costs of rights protection, and undermine the effectiveness of debt recovery.From a comparative law perspective, models of the piercing the corporate veil procedure can be categorized into three types: principle-based post-enforcement joinder, absolute pre-litigation requirement, and principle-based pre-litigation requirement.Their formation is the result of the interplay between specific socio-economic contexts and institutional frameworks: market structures lay the macro-foundation, the positioning of the relationship between adjudication and enforcement establishes the institutional framework, and legislative traditions shape the path dependence.Grounded in China's institutional context, a domestic procedural model should be established where “pre-litigation is the rule and post-enforcement joinder is the exception.” The rationality of this model stems from the need for procedural efficiency inherent in market structures, the procedural space reserved by reforms separating adjudication and enforcement, and the pursuit of legal certainty under statutory law.Within this procedural safeguard framework, application standards should be refined through a typological approach: in cases where substantive liability is clear and evidence is sufficient—such as the commingling of legal personality in a one-person company, a legal person's obvious lack of solvency coupled with shareholders' failure to fully contribute capital, or a company's deregistration without liquidation—shareholders may be directly added as debtors in the enforcement proceedings; whereas in cases involving shareholders' withdrawal of capital or excessive control over the company, the principle of litigation precedence must be strictly adhered to, and shareholders may not be added directly during the enforcement stage.

Key words: Piercing the Corporate Veil, Procedural Model, Adding Shareholders, Separation of Adjudication and Enforcement