会社法第330条
Relationship Between a Stock Company and Its Officers/Accounting Auditors
株式会社と役員等との関係
Plain-language explanation
Article 330 of the Companies Act establishes that the legal relationship between a stock company (kabushiki kaisha) and its officers (directors, statutory auditors, accounting advisors, etc.) and accounting auditors is governed by the provisions on "mandate" (i-nin) under the Civil Code. In simple terms, officers and auditors are not employees of the company — they are independent parties who have been entrusted (mandated) to perform management or auditing duties on the company's behalf.
This classification matters a great deal in practice. Because the relationship is one of mandate rather than employment, officers owe the company a "duty of care of a prudent manager" (zenkan chui gimu) — a relatively high standard of care. Breach of this duty can expose a director to personal liability for damages caused to the company. The mandate framework also means the relationship is inherently flexible: the company can remove an officer at any time (though removal without justifiable grounds may trigger a claim for damages by the removed officer), and officers can likewise resign at any time without needing "just cause" in the way an employee dismissal would.
Business owners and lawyers frequently cite this article as the starting point for analyzing disputes over director compensation, retirement bonuses, non-compete obligations, conflict-of-interest transactions, and liability for mismanagement. Whenever a dispute arises between a company and its officers — such as a wrongful dismissal claim or a derivative suit for breach of duty — the first analytical step is to confirm that Civil Code mandate provisions (Articles 643 and following) apply via this article.
日本語での解説
会社法第330条は、株式会社と取締役・監査役・会計参与などの「役員」及び「会計監査人」との間の法律関係が、民法上の「委任」に関する規定に従うことを定めています。つまり、役員や会計監査人は会社の「従業員」ではなく、会社から経営や監査などの事務処理を「委任」された独立した立場にあるということです。
この条文が重要なのは、委任契約であることから、役員には「善良な管理者の注意義務」(善管注意義務)が課されるという点です。これは労働契約における一般的な注意義務よりも高い水準の責任を意味し、役員が会社に損害を与えた場合には損害賠償責任を負う根拠となります。また、委任関係であるため、会社はいつでも役員を解任でき(ただし正当な理由がない解任には損害賠償請求権が生じる場合があります)、役員側もいつでも辞任できるという柔軟性も生まれます。
実務上は、役員報酬、退職慰労金、競業避止義務、利益相反取引の規制などの議論の出発点として、この「委任関係」という位置づけが頻繁に引用されます。会社と役員間で紛争が生じた際(不�当解任、任務懈怠による損害賠償請求など)、まずこの条文に基づき委任の規定(民法643条以下)が適用されることを確認することが分析の第一歩となります。
Common scenarios
- ▸株主総会での取締役解任の是非とその後の損害賠償請求
- ▸取締役の任務懈怠による会社への損害賠償責任の追及(会社法423条との関連)
- ▸役員報酬・退職慰労金の決定と委任契約上の位置づけの整理
- ▸会計監査人との契約終了・解任時のトラブル対応
- ▸役員の辞任(委任契約の解除)に伴う引継ぎや責任範囲の確認
Does this affect your contract?
Hanko AI reviews your contracts against 会社法第330条 and other Japanese statutes in under 60 seconds.
Review your contract free →Generated by Hanko AI from the official Japanese statute corpus. A general statutory reference for the practising attorney. Confirm the current statute against the facts of your matter.