邵某某与海南某建筑公司股东知情权纠纷案
Shao XXV. Hainan X Construction Company

(Dispute over shareholders’ right to know)

　　邵某某系海南某建筑公司的股东。2021年12月16日，邵某某向海南某建筑公司邮寄了《查账申请书》，向海南某建筑公司申请查阅2020年7月9日至2021年12月13日期间海南某建筑公司的会计账簿（包括总账、明细账、日记账和其他辅助性账簿）和会计凭证（含记账凭证、相关原始凭证及作为原始凭证附件入账备查的有关资料）。2021年12月31日，海南某建筑公司向邵某某出具《关于邵某某查账申请的复函》，认为邵某某的查账事由不属实，且存在入股主体经营与海南某建筑公司主营业务有实质性竞争关系的公司，查账存在不正当目的，拒绝向邵某某提供其申请的会计账簿和会计凭证。邵某某遂起诉要求海南某建筑公司向其提供自2020年7月9日起至判决确定履行之日止期间海南某建筑公司的会计账簿（包括总账、明细账、日记账和其他辅助性账簿）和会计凭证（包括记账凭证、相关原始凭证及作为原始凭证附件入账备查的有关资料）等供其复制、查阅。

Shao XX　is　a shareholder of Hainan X Construction Company. On December 16, 2021, Shao XX mailed the Application for　Inspectionof Accounts to the construction company　so as toinspect　the accounting books (including general ledger, subsidiary ledger, journal and other auxiliary account books) and accounting　documents　(including　vouchers,　source documents　and relevant documents as attachments to　source documents　forreference) of the construction company from July 9, 2020 to December 13, 2021. On December 31, 2021, the construction company issued the Reply Letter on Shao XX's Application forInspection　of Accounts to Shao XX, holding that　Shao XX’sgrounds forinspectionwasshaky, and　furthermore,　Shao XX held shares in a company whose main business is substantially competitive with the construction company’s andhence the ulterior motivehe hadforinspection, and then　rejected the said request of　Shao XX. Shao XX then sued the construction company and claimed that the company was obligated to provide　accounting books (including general ledger, subsidiary ledger, journal and other auxiliary account books) and accounting　documents　(including vouchers,　source documents　and relevant documents as attachments to　source documents for reference)of the construction company from July 9, 2020 to the　date set by　the Court　for its copying and inspection.

　　三亚市城郊人民法院作出(2022)琼0271民初1110号民事判决：海南某建筑公司于判决生效之日起十日内提供自2020年7月9日至2022年4月15日期间的财务会计报告、会计账簿(含总账、明细账、日记账、其他辅助性账簿)及会计凭证(含记账凭证、相关原始凭证及作为原始凭证附件入账备查的有关资料)供邵某某查阅。上述材料由邵某某在海南某建筑公司正常营业时间内查阅,查阅时间不得超过20个工作日。三亚市中级人民法院作出（2022）琼02民终1034号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。

Sanya Suburban People’s CourtissuedtheCivil　Judgment　(2022) Qiong 0271 MinChu No.1110　for this case, whichruled that the　construction company shall provide the financial　report, accounting books (including general ledger, subsidiary ledger, journal and other auxiliary account books) and　accounting　documents　(including vouchers,　source documents　and relevant documents as attachments to　source documents for reference)　from July 9, 2020 to April 15, 2022 for Shao XX's inspection within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment. The above documents shall be inspected by Shao XX during the normal business hours of the construction company, and the inspection time shall not exceed 20 working days.　Sanya　Intermediate People's Courtissuedthe　civil judgment　(2022) Qiong 02 MinZhong No.1034　for this case:The　appeal was　dismissed　and the　judgment of the first-instance court was affirmed.

　　法院生效判决认为，本案争议焦点为邵某某申请查阅公司账簿是否存在不正当目的的情形。《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(四)》第八条规定,有限责任公司有证据证明股东存在下列情形之一的，人民法院应当认定股东有公司法第三十三条第二款规定的“不正当目的”：（一）股东自营或者为他人经营与公司主营业务有实质性竞争关系业务的，但公司章程另有规定或者全体股东另有约定的除外；（二）股东为了向他人通报有关信息查阅公司会计账簿，可能损害公司合法利益的；（三）股东在向公司提出查阅请求之日前的三年内，曾通过查阅公司会计账簿，向他人通报有关信息损害公司合法利益的；（四）股东有不正当目的的其他情形。首先，海南某建筑公司主张邵某某合伙经营的广州某工程公司与海南某建筑公司有实质性竞争关系，但未提供证据予以证明，应承担举证不能的法律后果。其次，海南某建筑公司主张邵某某存在的其他情形均不符合上述“不正当目的”的法定情形，若海南某建筑公司认为邵某某损害公司利益可通过另案起诉。再次，海南某建筑公司主张2020年7月后公司账目不清，与查明事实不符，不予认可。最后，邵某某为海南某建筑公司的股东，行使知情权存在身份基础，且其已书面向海南某建筑公司提出了请求，履行了知情权的前置程序，故一审判决邵某某请求查阅公司会计账簿的主张成立，予以支持。

The effective judgment of　the Court　held that the　key issue in　the dispute in this case was whether Shao XX applied to inspect the company's account books for improper purposes.　According to　Article 8 of Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the　Company Law of the People's Republic of China　(IV),Where　a limited liability company has　reasonablegrounds toprove　that the shareholders have any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall determine that the shareholders have "improper purposes" as stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Company Law: (1)　Wherea shareholder engages in any business on his own account or for　others　that is in substantial competition with the principal business of the company, unless otherwise provided in the　Articles of Association of the company　or agreed by all the shareholders; (2)　Where　a　shareholder inspects the accounting books of the company for the purpose of informing others of relevant information, which may　cause damages to the legal　interests of the company; (3)Where　the　shareholder has, within three years prior to the date of making the request to the company, informed others of relevant information by inspecting the company's accounting books, which has harmed the　legal　interests of the company; (4) other circumstances in which the shareholder　has　improper purpose. First of all, the construction company claimed that a Guangzhou X Engineering Company operated by Shao XX had a substantial competitive relationship with the construction company, but did not provide evidence to prove, so it　shall　bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence.Secondly, the construction company's defenses　ofother circumstances　proved thatShao XX　has　"improper purpose"do not conform to the above-mentioned legal circumstances of "improper purpose". If the construction company believes that Shao XX　damagedthe interests of the company, it may　fileanother lawsuit. Thirdly, the construction company claimed that thecompany has accounting problems　after July 2020, which was inconsistent with the facts ascertained and was not affirmed. Finally,　as a shareholder of the construction company,Shao XXis entitled by law　to exercisethe right to know, and he has made a written request to the construction company and performed the pre-procedure of the right to know. Therefore, the　first-instancecourtsupported　Shao XX's claim　of　inspecting　the accounting books of the company.

　　实践中，中小股东通常不参与公司的实际经营管理，股东和管理人员之间信息不对称。在此背景下，法律通过赋予股东知情权，特别是能够反映公司经营状况与财务信息的会计账簿查阅权，是保障中小股东权利得以有效行使的必要前提和手段，也是监督公司运行的重要措施。本案通过《中华人民共和国公司法》第三十三条的规定进行了举证责任的分配，对股东查阅公司会计账簿举证证明其前置程序满足书面形式、目的正当的形式外观要件即可。而公司拒绝股东查阅公司会计账簿的，则应由公司举证证明股东查阅的实质目的具有不正当性。本案通过举证能力、举证目的的考量合理分配举证责任，保护了中小股东的权益。

In practice, minority shareholders usually do not　manage the　operation　or governanceof　the　company,　hence　the information　asymmetrybetween　them　and managers　of the company. Under this background,　shareholders　are grantedthe right to know　by law, especially the right to inspect accounting books, which can reflect the company's　business and　financial　status. It is　aprerequisitefor　ensuring　the effective exercise of the rights of minority shareholders, and also an important measure to supervisethe　businessstatus of the company. In this case,　　according to Article 33 of theCompany Law of the People's Republic of China,　the burden of proof is allocatedas follows:　where a　shareholder want to check the accounts of the company,allhe has to do　is　to prove that the pre-procedure meets the formal requirements of written form and proper purpose.　Wherethe company　rejectssuch a request　of　the shareholders, the company shall　provide evidence to prove that the substantial purpose of the shareholders’ inspection is improper. In this case,　considering　thecapacityof the partiesandpurpose ofburden of proofset by law,the Courtrendered　thejudgment thatproperlyprotected the rights and interests of minority shareholders.