公司僵局及其司法救济制度研究

发布时间：2018-01-19 20:31

本文关键词： 公司僵局司法救济强制解散退股权　出处：《中国政法大学》2008年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 公司僵局的现象在英美法系和大陆法系国家已经被广为研究,我国公司实践中同样存在公司僵局这种经济现象。面对公司僵局纷繁复杂的成因,我国吸取各国立法之经验,结合各家学者百家争鸣般的研究观点,立足于我国公司运行的实际情况,在2005年新修订的《公司法》中突破以往的法律空白,对此进行了规定。2008年最高人民法院出台的司法解释(二)则是对公司僵局司法救济措施之一强制解散制度的实务性规定。上述立法成果都是我国理论界和实务界长期努力的结果。笔者即以新《公司法》和司法解释(二)为契机,对公司僵局及司法解散制度进行重新审视,在诸多学者研究的基础上,以新《公司法》和司法解释(二)的规定为基础,把公司僵局司法救济制度中崭新的面目呈现出来。全文遵循提出问题、研究问题、解决问题的研究思路,对有限责任公司僵局及其司法救济制度进行了深入的探讨,并详细深入地对我国司法强制解散制度进行阐述。本文共分为三章。第一章是公司僵局的一般理论。笔者从公司僵局概念的界定出发,介绍了英美法系和大陆法系以及我国学者对公司僵局的概念研究,并对公司僵局的分类、特征、深层次的制度成因和其对股东、公司、职工、债权人以及社会的不利因素进行了剖析,使大家对公司僵局在理论层面上有基本的认识。第二章是司法救济概论。本章介绍了“期待利益落空理论”、“权利救济理论”和“契约自由理论”三个公司僵局司法救济的法理学理论,并借鉴了英、美、德、日公司僵局救济的主要渠道和主要措施,揭示了公司僵局司法救济的制度价值,最后导出我国公司僵局司法救济的最新立法现状,即股东的赔偿请求权、退股权、股东代表诉讼与股东直接诉讼、司法强制解散四种解决公司僵局的救济措施。第三章是司法强制解散制度。通过介绍司法强制解散的定义,阐明司法强制解散具有“穷尽其他救济途径”和“利益平衡”的适用原则。重点研究我国司法强制解散制度的现状,即新《公司法》第183条的规定和《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(二)》[简称司法解释(二)]的相应规定,深入分析强制解散法定事由规定的“公司经营管理严重困难”、“股东利益受到重大损失”、“其他途径不能解决”、“持股百分之十的股东提出”等条件的深刻含义,并对我国现行司法强制解散诉讼涉及的裁判规则,包括原告、被告、管辖、案由、清算、保全等方面进行了梳理。最后,对司法强制解散的替代性解决方案之一的退股权进行了适当说明,以期在重点研究强制解散救济措施的同时,引起大家对整个司法救济体系建设的思考,开阔大家的视野。
[Abstract]:The phenomenon of corporate deadlock has been widely studied in Anglo-American law system and civil law system countries. The economic phenomenon of corporate deadlock also exists in our country's corporate practice. Faced with the complex causes of corporate deadlock. Our country absorbs the national legislation experience, unifies each scholar hundred schools of thought to contend the research viewpoint, based on our country company operation actual situation, in 2005 the newly revised "Company Law" broke through the past legal blank. The judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme people's Court on 2008 (2). It is the practical stipulation of one of the judicial relief measures for the company deadlock. All the above legislative achievements are the result of the long-term efforts of the theoretical and practical circles of our country. The author uses the new Company Law and the judicial explanation (. II) as an opportunity. The company deadlock and judicial dissolution system are re-examined, on the basis of many scholars' research, based on the provisions of the new Company Law and judicial interpretation (2). The company deadlock in the judicial relief system a new face. The full text follows the research ideas of raising questions, studying problems, solving problems, and deeply discusses the deadlock of limited liability companies and its judicial relief system. This article is divided into three chapters. The first chapter is the general theory of corporate deadlock. From the definition of the concept of corporate deadlock, the author introduces the Anglo-American law system, civil law system and Chinese scholars on the concept of corporate deadlock, and the classification of corporate deadlock. The characteristics, deep-seated institutional causes and its disadvantages to shareholders, companies, employees, creditors and society are analyzed, which makes people have a basic understanding of corporate deadlock on the theoretical level. The second chapter is the introduction of judicial relief. This chapter introduces the three legal theories of judicial remedy of corporate deadlock, which are "the theory of disappointed expected interests", "right relief theory" and "freedom of contract theory", and draw lessons from the United States and Britain. The main channels and measures of corporate deadlock relief in Germany and Japan reveal the institutional value of judicial relief for corporate deadlock. Finally, the latest legislative situation of judicial relief for corporate deadlock in China is derived, that is, the shareholders' right to claim compensation. Withdrawal of shares, shareholder's representative action and shareholder's direct action, judicial compulsory dissolution of four relief measures to resolve the deadlock of the company. The third chapter is the judicial compulsory dissolution system. Through the introduction of the definition of judicial compulsory dissolution. This paper expounds the applicable principles of "exhausting other remedies" and "balance of interests" in judicial compulsory dissolution, and focuses on the current situation of judicial compulsory dissolution in China. That is, the provisions of Article 183 of the New Company Law and the provisions of the Supreme people's Court concerning the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (2) > [The corresponding provisions of the judicial interpretation (2) for short, in-depth analysis of the mandatory dissolution of the statutory reasons for "serious difficulties in company management", "shareholders' interests suffered significant losses," "other ways can not be resolved." The profound meaning of the conditions such as "the shareholder of holding 10%" and so on, and the judgment rules involved in the current judicial compulsory dissolution litigation in China, including plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case cause, liquidation. Finally, the judicial compulsory dissolution of one of the alternative solutions to the withdrawal of equity is properly explained, in order to focus on the compulsory dissolution of relief measures at the same time. Causes everybody to the entire judicial relief system construction ponder, broadens everybody's vision.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【引证文献】