依《民法总则》第70条及《公司法解释二》第18条的规定，我国有限责任公司的股东、实际控制人以及董事为清算义务人。然而，实践中股东的清算义务人地位饱受争议，同时董事对清算义务人职能的履行也存在客观困难。这一架构在学术讨论及司法审判中不断受挑战，究其原因主要是对清算义务人的具体内涵、确定标准认识模糊，且现行规则因循了司法审判指导意见以确定责任人为目的的“追责性”思路所致。

本文对清算义务人担当人的确定标准进行了细化。清算义务应属于公司自我管理事务，应该由公司依据其法人地位，在公司自治范围内解决。清算义务人所负担的信义义务，应当是完整的信义义务，即对与公司有利益关联的各个主体均负有该项义务。其所应当掌握的对公司的控制权，并非是对公司战略上笼统的规制，而是包含了对公司的经营、管理与控制三层内涵。清算义务应当被视作一项公司控制权的派生权能或义务，交由掌握公司实际控制权的主体承担。

其次，本文对清算义务人担当人进行了重新界定。有限责任公司股东不宜作为清算义务人，股东作为公司的所有者，不应承担除出资以外的其他义务。董事亦无法全面履行清算义务人职能。董事实际上只是管理公司，并不符合清算义务人应对公司掌握“控制权”的标准。本文对实际控制人进行了分类，依据不同情况判定其清算义务人地位以确保权责统一，更贴合公平正义原则。本文认为，公司董事会及实际控制人才是真正意义上的清算义务人。

最后，本文对多个清算义务人并存时的顺位规则进行了讨论，认为控制权是确定清算义务人顺位的核心标准。在实际控制人掌握董事会的情况下，实际控制人应当优先承担清算义务人职责，董事会次之。在董事会内部应当根据董事会会议规则等行权顺序，区分不同情况进行责任分配。同时，应当在清算义务人中创设抗辩条款，以保护无过错者的合法权利。

According to article 70 of the general provisions of the civil law and article 18 of the second interpretation of the company law, the liquidation obligor of China's limited liability companies are the company's shareholders, actual controllers and directors. This combination has been challenged in academic discussions and judicial practice. The role of shareholders as liquidation obligor of the limited company is full of controversy, and the directors also have difficulties in performing the duty of liquidation obligor. The dispute of the scope of the liquidation obligor is largely caused by the vague understanding of the connotation of the obligor and also the selected standard, meanwhile the other reason is that the legislative thinking of current rules influenced the accountability thinking of the judicial guidance.

Firstly, this paper makes the selection standard of the liquidation obligor more specific. The liquidation obligation belongs to the company's self-management business, which should be resolved within the company's autonomy. The fiduciary duty of the liquidation obligor should be a complete fiduciary duty, which means it should be the duty to all the stakeholders of the company. The right to control the company should not be a general regulation to the company's strategy, while it shall contain three meaning of the company's operation, management and control. The liquidation obligation should be regarded as a derivative right of  controlling of the company, and be assumed by the entity who has the actual control of the company.

Secondly, this paper tries to reconfirm the candidates of the liquidation obligor. It is considered that the shareholders of a limited liability company should not be regarded as the liquidation obligor, because the shareholders, as the owners of the company, should not undertake additional obligations but the capital contribution. Directors are also unable to completely perform the duties of liquidation agents. Although the directors do manage the company but still not meet the standard that a liquidation agent should have "control" over the company. This paper classifies the actual controllers in order to find out the most appropriate liquidation obligor under the principle of unity of right and duty. In this paper, the board of directors and the actual controller are the real liquidation agents.

Finally, this paper wants to find the rule of ranking of several liquidation obligors. In the author’s opinion, the right of controlling the company is the core criterion of the sequence of liquidation obligors. In the case when there coexist two liquidation obligors, and the actual controller dominates the board of directors, it should be prior liquidation agent and the board of directors follows. Within the board of directors, responsibilities of performing the duties of liquidation should be allocated according to the order confirmed by the meeting rules of the board of directors. meanwhile, the defense clause should be created to protect the legal rights of the innocent directors.