译者：汪晨涵 复旦大学法律硕士
审稿：毛雨嫣 中国政法大学 
         李梓源 英国布里斯托大学LL.M.
编辑：MC BU LL.M.
责编：陈逸漩 中国人民大学
Xing Furong v. Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., Ding Shiguo, et al. (case regarding dispute over transfer of property share of a partnership)
邢福荣与北京鼎典泰富投资管理有限公司、丁世国等合伙企业财产份额转让纠纷案
【最高人民法院公报案件】
判决原文：
http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/17c4a10887eb61346f7e9c255b710a.htm
【裁判摘要】
[Judgment Abstract]
合伙协议就合伙企业财产份额转让的特别约定，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，亦不违背公序良俗，应认定其合法有效，合伙人应严格遵守该约定。合伙协议已经明确约定合伙人之间转让合伙财产份额需经全体合伙人一致同意的，在其他合伙人未同意合伙财产份额转让之前，当事人就合伙财产份额转让签订的转让协议成立但未生效。如其他合伙人明确不同意该合伙财产份额转让，则转让协议确定不生效，不能在当事人之间产生履行力。当事人请求履行转让协议的，人民法院不予支持。
A partnership agreement should be deemed as valid provided that its special provisions on the transfer of property share of a partnership are neither in violation of the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations nor against public order and good morals, whereby the partners of such partnership should strictly obey the agreement. If it is already stipulated in the partnership agreement that transfer of partner’s property requires unanimous consent of all partners, the transfer agreement so signed is determined as tenable but will not come into effect unless consented by other partners. If other partners explicitly disagree with the transfer, it should not be binding upon any parties involved. Therefore, any party’s claim for the performance of such an agreement will be rejected by people’s courts. 
最高人民法院民事判决书
（2020）最高法民终904号
Supreme Court of People’s Republic of China
Civil Judgement
(2020) Supreme Court, Civil, Final, No.904
【基本案情】
Basic Facts
新能源基金于2012年11月27日注册成立。2014年，合伙人盈富泰克创业投资有限公司、吉林省城建实业有限公司、邢福荣、吉林省创业投资引导基金有限责任公司、营口红佳投资有限公司、鼎典泰富公司签订《合伙协议》，约定企业性质为有限合伙，鼎典泰富公司为新能源合伙企业的普通合伙人、执行合伙人、基金管理人，其他各方为有限合伙人。本基金总出资额为2.6263亿元，全部为货币出资。协议约定有限合伙人转让或出质财产份额应须经全体合伙人一致同意。邢福荣按约定将5000万元出资缴纳。
New Energy Fund was incorporated on November 27, 2012. In 2014, Infotech Venture Co., Ltd, Jilin City Construction Co., Ltd, Xing Furong, Jilin City Industrial Investment Guidance Fund Co., Ltd, Yingkou Hongjia Investment Co., Ltd, Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., these six partners signed a partnership agreement, which stated that the nature of this enterprise is a limited partnership enterprise. Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., was a general partner and managing partner. The other parties are limited partners. The total capital contribution of the Fund is 262.63 million yuan, all in currency. This Agreement stipulated that the transfer or pledge of property share by limited partners shall be subject to unanimous consent of all partners. Xing Furong contributed 50 million yuan under the Agreement.
2018年1月，邢福荣与鼎典泰富公司签订《转让协议书》，约定鼎典泰富公司协助邢福荣持有的新能源基金19.04％的财产份额（合计人民币伍仟万元）转让给第三方，但是约定期限内如果未能寻找到第三方的鼎典泰富公司承诺自行或指定第三方直接受让财产份额。
In January 2018, Xing Furong and Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., signed a transfer agreement that the latter assisted the former to transfer his shares to a third party, which is 19.04% (total of fifty million yuan), in this enterprise. If it fails, the latter shall accept these properties by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee directly. 
因鼎典泰富公司在约定期限未有合适第三方受让邢福荣的财产份额，鼎典泰富公司也未自行或指定第三方直接受让该财产份额，邢福荣委托律师发《律师函》，催告鼎典泰富公司自行或指定第三方受让邢福荣在新能源基金中的财产份额，鼎典泰富公司予以拒绝。
Neither did the latter find a suitable third party to accept these shares, nor did it accept by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee within the prescribed time. Xing Furong entrusted a lawyer to send a lawyer’s letter demanding Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd.,to accept his shares by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee directly, but the request was rejected.
鼎典泰富公司注册资本16300万元，股东为丁世国、鼎典投资公司、吉林投资公司、嘉兴泽源，均已实缴。
The registered capital of Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. is 163 million yuan, and the shareholders are Ding Shiguo, Dingdian Investment Company, Jilin Investment Company and Jiaxing Zeyuan, which have all been paid in.
邢福荣向一审法院起诉，请求判令鼎典泰富公司向邢福荣支付转让款5000万元及自2012年11月28日起按照协议约定8％的年利率计算至全部转让款付清之日的利息，丁世国、鼎典投资公司、吉林投资公司、嘉兴泽源各自在未出资本息范围内对鼎典泰富公司在第一项中不能清偿的部分承担补充赔偿责任。
Xing Furong filed a lawsuit with the Jilin High People’s Court, requesting Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. to transfer 50 million yuan to him and the interest from November 28, 2012, to the date when the amount paid off, at an annual rate of 8%. Meanwhile, Ding Shiguo, Dingdian Investment Company, Jilin Investment Company and Jiaxing Zeyuan shall be liable for supplementary compensation within the scope of unfunded principal and interest.
一审法院判决《转让协议书》有效，鼎典泰富公司应当以5000万元为基数按照6％年利率向邢福荣支付逾期付款的损失，驳回其他诉讼请求。
The trial court ruled that the transfer agreement was valid, and Dingdian Taifu should pay Xing Furong the loss of overdue payment according to the 6% annual interest rate with 50 million yuan as the base, other requests have been rejected.
【基本案情】
Basic Facts
新能源基金于2012年11月27日注册成立。2014年，合伙人盈富泰克创业投资有限公司、吉林省城建实业有限公司、邢福荣、吉林省创业投资引导基金有限责任公司、营口红佳投资有限公司、鼎典泰富公司签订《合伙协议》，约定企业性质为有限合伙，鼎典泰富公司为新能源合伙企业的普通合伙人、执行合伙人、基金管理人，其他各方为有限合伙人。本基金总出资额为2.6263亿元，全部为货币出资。协议约定有限合伙人转让或出质财产份额应须经全体合伙人一致同意。邢福荣按约定将5000万元出资缴纳。
New Energy Fund was incorporated on November 27, 2012. In 2014, Infotech Venture Co., Ltd, Jilin City Construction Co., Ltd, Xing Furong, Jilin City Industrial Investment Guidance Fund Co., Ltd, Yingkou Hongjia Investment Co., Ltd, Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., these six partners signed a partnership agreement, which stated that the nature of this enterprise is a limited partnership enterprise. Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., was a general partner and managing partner. The other parties are limited partners. The total capital contribution of the Fund is 262.63 million yuan, all in currency. This Agreement stipulated that the transfer or pledge of property share by limited partners shall be subject to unanimous consent of all partners. Xing Furong contributed 50 million yuan under the Agreement.
2018年1月，邢福荣与鼎典泰富公司签订《转让协议书》，约定鼎典泰富公司协助邢福荣持有的新能源基金19.04％的财产份额（合计人民币伍仟万元）转让给第三方，但是约定期限内如果未能寻找到第三方的鼎典泰富公司承诺自行或指定第三方直接受让财产份额。
In January 2018, Xing Furong and Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., signed a transfer agreement that the latter assisted the former to transfer his shares to a third party, which is 19.04% (total of fifty million yuan), in this enterprise. If it fails, the latter shall accept these properties by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee directly. 
因鼎典泰富公司在约定期限未有合适第三方受让邢福荣的财产份额，鼎典泰富公司也未自行或指定第三方直接受让该财产份额，邢福荣委托律师发《律师函》，催告鼎典泰富公司自行或指定第三方受让邢福荣在新能源基金中的财产份额，鼎典泰富公司予以拒绝。
Neither did the latter find a suitable third party to accept these shares, nor did it accept by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee within the prescribed time. Xing Furong entrusted a lawyer to send a lawyer’s letter demanding Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd.,to accept his shares by itself or appoint a third party to be the transferee directly, but the request was rejected.
鼎典泰富公司注册资本16300万元，股东为丁世国、鼎典投资公司、吉林投资公司、嘉兴泽源，均已实缴。
The registered capital of Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. is 163 million yuan, and the shareholders are Ding Shiguo, Dingdian Investment Company, Jilin Investment Company and Jiaxing Zeyuan, which have all been paid in.
邢福荣向一审法院起诉，请求判令鼎典泰富公司向邢福荣支付转让款5000万元及自2012年11月28日起按照协议约定8％的年利率计算至全部转让款付清之日的利息，丁世国、鼎典投资公司、吉林投资公司、嘉兴泽源各自在未出资本息范围内对鼎典泰富公司在第一项中不能清偿的部分承担补充赔偿责任。
Xing Furong filed a lawsuit with the Jilin High People’s Court, requesting Beijing Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. to transfer 50 million yuan to him and the interest from November 28, 2012, to the date when the amount paid off, at an annual rate of 8%. Meanwhile, Ding Shiguo, Dingdian Investment Company, Jilin Investment Company and Jiaxing Zeyuan shall be liable for supplementary compensation within the scope of unfunded principal and interest.
一审法院判决《转让协议书》有效，鼎典泰富公司应当以5000万元为基数按照6％年利率向邢福荣支付逾期付款的损失，驳回其他诉讼请求。
The trial court ruled that the transfer agreement was valid, and Dingdian Taifu should pay Xing Furong the loss of overdue payment according to the 6% annual interest rate with 50 million yuan as the base, other requests have been rejected.
【判决结果】
Adjudication
一、撤销吉林省高级人民法院(2019)吉民初5号民事判决；
二、驳回邢福荣的诉讼请求。

一审案件受理费415198元，保全费5000元，二审案件受理费375635.62元，均由邢福荣负担。
1. High People’s Court of Jilin Province (2019) Ji Civil first No. 5, Civil Judgement was reversed.
2. Xing Furong’s claims were rejected.
The cost of litigation fee for the first instance was 415,198 yuan, the preservation fee was 5,000 yuan, and litigation fee for the second instance was 375,635.62 yuan,which should be borne all by Xing Furong.
【裁判理由】
Reasons
本院认为，根据当事人的诉辩情况，本案的争议焦点是：未经全体合伙人一致同意的案涉《转让协议书》效力及履行问题。该争议焦点问题又涉及以下几个方面问题：
Held: according to the pleading of the parties, the main issue is the validity and performance of this Transfer Agreement without unanimous consent of all partners. This issue includes the following aspects：
(一)  关于合伙人之间合伙财产份额转让条约的效力问题。
在《合伙企业法》关于有限合伙企业的法律规定中，并无合伙人之间转让合伙企业财产份额的规定。《合伙企业法》第六十条规定：“有限合伙企业及其合伙人适用本章规定；本章未作规定的，适用本法第二章第一节至第五节关于普通合伙企业及其合伙人的规定。”《合伙企业法》第二十二条第二款对普通合伙中合伙人之间财产份额转让作出规定：“合伙人之间转让在合伙企业中的全部或者部分财产份额时，应当通知其他合伙人”。但是，该条款并未规定合伙协议对合伙人之间转让财产份额进行特别约定的效力。即使是即将生效的《中华人民共和国民法典》合伙合同章中，也未涉及合伙人之间财产份额转让特约的效力问题，而在本案当事人之间转让合伙财产份额有特别约定的情况下，首先需要对该合伙财产份额转让特约的效力进行认定。对此，需要结合合伙经营方式或合伙组织体的性质及立法精神加以判断。

合伙是两个以上合伙人为了共同的事业目的，以订立共享利益、共担风险协议为基础而设立的经营方式或组织体。合伙人之间的合作建立在对彼此人身高度信赖的基础之上，故合伙事业具有高度的人合性。比如，合伙人的债权人不得代位行使合伙人的权利；合伙人死亡、丧失民事行为能力或者终止的，合伙合同终止，而非合伙人的资格或财产份额可以继承。由于合伙事业高度强调人合性，故应尊重合伙人之间的意思自治。因此，就合伙人之间的财产份额转让而言，如果合伙协议有特别约定，在该约定不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，也不违背公序良俗的情况下，则应认定其合法有效，合伙人应严格遵守。
(1) Concerning the validity of transferring property of partnership between partners
In the provisions of the Partnership Enterprise Law on limited partnerships, no provision defines the transfer of partnership property shares among partners. Article 60 provides: “A limited partnership enterprise and its partners shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter. If any matter is not covered in this Chapter, it shall be governed by the provisions of Sections 1 through 5 of Chapter II of this Law on general partnership enterprises and their partners”. Article 22 Paragraph 2 provides for the transfer of property shares between partners: “In the case of assignment of a partner's entire or partial share of properties of a partnership enterprise to another partner, the other partners shall be informed of this assignment”. However, this paragraph does not provide for the effect of the partnership agreement on the transfer of shares of property between partners.
Partnership is a business mode or entity established by two or more partners for the purpose of common business and based on the agreement to share interests and risks. The corporation between partners is built on the basis of high trust in each other, so the partnership business has high degree of human compatibility. For example, creditors of a partner may not exercise the rights of the partner in subrogation. If a partner dies, become incapacitated or terminates, the partnership contract shall be terminated, and the qualifications or share of property of non-partner may be inherited. Since the partnership business highly emphasizes human compatibility, autonomy of will shall be respected. Therefore, in terms of the transfer of property among partners, if there is a special provision in partnership agreement, and it does not violate the mandatory provisions of law, administrative regulations, and does not violate public order and good customs, it shall be deemed legal and valid, and the partners shall strictly abide by it.

(二)关于案涉《合伙协议》中有关合伙人之间财产份额转让特别约定的效力问题。
(2) Validity of special provisions concerning the transfer of property shares among partners in partnership agreement

案涉新能源基金为有限合伙。《转让协议书》约定的转让标的为有限合伙人邢福荣所持有的新能源基金19.04％的财产份额。对合伙人之间转让合伙财产份额，案涉《合伙协议》明确约定“需经全体合伙人一致同意”，具体体现为：《合伙协议》第27.6条约定，有限合伙人转让或出质财产份额，除另有约定外，应须经全体合伙人一致同意。第33条约定，除非法律另有规定或全体合伙人达成一致同意的书面决定，有限合伙人不能转变为普通合伙人，普通合伙人亦不能转变为有限合伙人；该条针对本案所涉邢福荣转让有限合伙财产份额给普通合伙人的情形，进一步明确需要经全体合伙人一致同意。而该协议第29.1条则约定，经全体合伙人同意，有限合伙人可以向新能源基金其他有限合伙人，也可以向满足条件的其他自然人或法人转让在合伙企业中的全部或者部分财产份额，但转让后需满足本协议的有关规定。该约定进一步印证，合伙人之间对于合伙财产份额转让的慎重。故自上述《合伙协议》关于合伙财产份额的约定可以明确，新能源基金之合伙人在订立《合伙协议》时，已经基于合伙经营的人合性属性，明确要求合伙人之间转让合伙财产份额需经全体合伙人一致同意。

在《合伙协议》系订约各合伙人真实意思表示的情况下，该协议中关于合伙人之间转让合伙财产份额的特约，并不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，也不违背公序良俗，合法有效。邢福荣关于《合伙协议》中对合伙人之间转让财产份额需要“经全体合伙人同意”的约定与《合伙企业法》的规定相悖，该约定客观上限制了《合伙企业法》赋予合伙人依法转让财产份额的法定权利，故对各方不具有约束力的抗辩主张，于法无据；且前已述及，该理由恰恰与合伙经营方式或组织体之人合性所强调的合伙人高度自治之精神相悖，故本院不予采纳。
New energy Fund in this case is a limited partnership. The transfer subject in this transfer agreement is the 19.04% share of the property of the New Energy Fund held by Xing Furong, a limited partner. As for the transfer of partnership property shares between partners, the partnership agreement stipulates that “consent of all partners shall be required”, which is specifically reflected in Article 27.6 of the partnership agreement. Unless otherwise stipulated, the transfer or pledge of property shares by limited partners shall be subject to the unanimous consent of all partners. Article 33 states that unless otherwise provided by law or concluded in writing upon the consensus of all partners, a limited partner cannot be transformed into a general partner, vice versa. In terms of this case, transferring Xing Furong’s shares of property shall be consented by all partners. As stipulated in Article 29.1, limited partners may, with the consent of all partners, transfer all or part of their shares of property to other limited partners, or to other natural persons or legal persons meeting the conditions, provided that the relevant provisions of this Agreement shall be met after the transfer. This Agreement further confirmed the deliberation of transfer among partners. Therefore, based on human compatibility, the requirement of transfer of shares of property demands unanimous consent of all partners was clear when partners signed the partnership agreement.
In the case that the Partnership Agreement is a true expression of the intent of each contracting partner, the special agreement on the transfer of shares of property among parties does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations, nor does it violate public order and good customs, it is valid and effective. Xing Furong’s argument that the provision that states the transferred property among partners needs the consent of all partners on the Partnership Agreement is inconsistent with the provisions of the Partnership Enterprise Law, the contract objectively restricts the Partnership Enterprise Law and gives the legal rights of the partners by law, which shall not be binding upon parties does not been accepted by this Court.

(三)关于案涉《转让协议书》的效力及履行问题。
The validity and performance of the Transfer Agreement

案涉《转让协议书》在邢福荣与鼎典泰富公司之间签订，且系邢福荣与鼎典泰富公司之真实意思表示，该《转让协议书》自当事人意思表示一致时即成立。    但是，在案涉《合伙协议》已经明确约定合伙人之间转让合伙财产份额需经全体合伙人一致同意的情况下，该《转让协议书》欲生效，尚需要满足全体合伙人一致同意的条件。而在其他合伙人未对该合伙财产份额转让明确同意之前，案涉《转让协议书》属于合同成立未生效的状态。在本案审理过程中，新能源基金有限合伙人吉林省城建实业有限公司和红佳投资有限公司向本院提交书面《情况说明》，均明确不同意邢福荣向鼎典泰富公司转让合伙财产份额。此节事实说明，案涉《转让协议书》关于合伙财产份额转让事宜，已经确定不能取得全体合伙人同意，故该《转让协议书》确定不生效，不能在当事人之间产生履行力。
在本案诉讼中，邢福荣诉请履行《转让协议书》，系以《转让协议书》合法有效及具有履行力为前提。在案涉《转让协议书》已经确定不生效的情况下，邢福荣诉请履行该《转让协议书》，缺乏事实基础和法律依据，应予驳回。一审法院认定案涉《转让协议书》合法有效，判决鼎典泰富公司继续履行该协议书，违反《合伙协议》约定的合伙财产份额转让需要征得全体合伙人一致同意的共同意思表示，也违反《合伙协议》关于未经全体合伙人一致同意有限合伙不能转变为普通合伙、普通合伙不能转变为有限合伙的共同意思表示，认定事实及适用法律均错误，应予纠正。

鼎典泰富公司主张案涉《转让协议书》无效，而本院认定案涉《转让协议书》不生效及不存在无效事由。从结果上看，合同确定不生效所产生的合同不具有履行力的法律效果，与合同无效所产生的合同不具有履行力的法律效果是相同的，即均产生邢福荣请求继续履行该《转让协议书》的诉讼请求不能成立的法律后果，    故鼎典泰富公司关于应驳回邢福荣继续履行《转让协议书》、支付转让价款诉讼请求的上诉主张，理据充分，本院予以支持。
(3)Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. claimed that the Transfer Agreement was invalid, while the court held that the Transfer Agreement was not effective and was no cause for invalidation. From the point of view of the final result, the ineffective contract has the same legal effect of invalid contract.
Therefore, Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. claimed that the claim of Xing Furong shall be rejected and the transfer fee shall be borne by Xing Furong is supported by this court.
This Transfer Agreement was signed between Xing Furong and Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd., and showed their true expression of intent, such Agreement was established.
However, if this Agreement has clearly stipulated that the transfer of partnership property shares between the partners shall be agreed upon by all the partners, the Transfer Agreement shall still meet the conditions agreed by all the partners to take effect. Prior to the explicit consent of the other partners to the transfer of the partnership property share, the transfer Agreement shall belong to the state that the contract has not taken effect. During the trial of this case, Jilin Chengjian Industrial Co., Ltd and Hongjia Investment Co., Ltd, the partners of New Energy Fund Co., Ltd., submitted written “Fact Sheets” to the Court, both of which explicitly disagreed with Xing Furong’s transfer of partnership property shares to Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. Such facts show that the Transfer Agreement concerning the transfer of shares of partnership property has been determined invalid, therefore, it cannot be performed among parties.
In this litigation, Xing Furong’s claim for the performance of transfer agreement is based on the premise that the Agreement is valid and enforceable. In the case that such an Agreement in question has been determined not to take effect, Xing Furong’s petition for the performance of the Transfer Agreement lacks factual and legal basis and should be rejected. The first-instance court ascertained that the Transfer Agreement is legal and effect, and ruling that Dingdian Taifu Investment Management Co., Ltd. shall continue to perform the agreement is in violation of the partnership agreement that transfer of shares of partnership property requires the consent of all partners, also in violation of the Partnership Agreement that without consent of all partners, a limited partner cannot turn into a general partner, and vice versa. Such decision is a mistake of law and mistake of fact, it shall be remanded.
审判长　王富博
Presiding Judge Wang Fubo

审判员　仲伟珩
Judge Zhong Weiheng

审判员　李赛敏
Judge Li Saimin

二〇二〇年十二月十五日
December 15, 2020
法官助理  赵   迪
Judge Assistant Zhao Di
书记员  李   杨
Court Clerk Li Yang
继续阅读
阅读原文