中韩商法对抽逃出资规制制度的比较研究

发布时间：2018-02-16 04:54

本文关键词： 见金假装缴纳抽逃出资股款缴纳资本充实原则民事责任可转换债券　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：为了维持资本充实原则,商法上建立了资本金全额缴纳制度。但是实践中,很多公司为资本金不足、规避注册资本最低限额、回避公司经营风险等理由而进行抽逃出资。公司设立或者新股发行时,为了保护公司债权人,公司的资本应当通过现金缴纳和实物出资而完成。这是因为公司的资本是公司债权人能够实现债权的物的担保。然而,实践当中许多投资者通过抽逃出资回收投资金。在这种情况下,股东在抽逃出资之前存在着正常的股款缴纳的行为,从它的外观上可能无法判断出是否抽逃出资。比较典型的情形是,出资人通过向他人借款,利用该笔借款缴纳到特定保管银行,完成公司登记以后,再抽出缴纳款而偿还借款。这样的抽逃出资会影响公司的正常营业活动、带来公司资本不实现象,因此法律上应该施加适当控制。韩国法上没有直接使用“抽逃出资”的概念,但建立了以“假装缴纳罪”为核心的控制此类行为的制度。韩国在大约30年前开始出现抽逃出资问题,因此法律上或实践上的认定处理方面基本上比较成熟。2003年,为了解决创业板风潮中暴露出的大量抽逃出资问题,韩国检察院特别设立了金融调查部门,对公司的抽逃出资行为和向公司提供抽逃出资金钱的行为进行严格控制。现行韩国商法对公司抽逃出资行为明确规定民事责任,同时规定对行为人、协助人、中介人的行政处罚以及刑事处罚。然而中国比韩国稍晚出现这些问题,出台《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(三)》之前,立法上对出资行为的判断和责任规定都比较模糊,对抽逃出资问题没有能够控制而使其问题比较严重。当然,新出台的《司法解释(三)》上对抽逃出资的认定标准、民事责任等的内容作出比较明确、具体的规定,可以期待能够控制和预防抽逃出资问题而保障公司资本的健全性。本文章对这样的抽逃出资概念、认定标准、法律后果等比较研究中韩两国的法律规定和司法实践中的解决方案,并努力对中国目前的立法和司法情况提出一点建议。
[Abstract]:In order to maintain the principle of capital enrichment, the commercial law has established a system of full capital payment, but in practice, many companies draw out capital for reasons such as insufficient capital, evading the minimum registered capital limit and avoiding the operating risk of the company. When a company is established or a new issue is issued, in order to protect the creditors of the company, the capital of the company should be completed through cash payment and in kind contribution. This is because the capital of the company is the guarantee of the thing that the creditor of the company can realize the creditor's rights. In practice, many investors withdraw their capital to recover their funds. In this case, shareholders have normal behavior of paying stock before withdrawing their capital. From its appearance, it may not be possible to determine whether to withdraw the capital contribution. A more typical case is that the investor makes use of the loan to pay to a specific custodian bank by borrowing from another person, and after completing the company registration, Such withdrawal of capital will affect the normal business activities of the company and bring about the phenomenon of miscapitalization of the company, so it should be properly controlled by law. South Korean law does not directly use the concept of "withdrawal of funds", but it has a system of controlling such acts with "feigning to pay" as the core. South Korea began to have the problem of withdrawing funds about 30 years ago. In 2003, in order to solve the problem of a large amount of capital withdrawals exposed in the gem, the Korean Procuratorate specially set up a financial investigation department. The current Korean commercial law clearly stipulates the civil liability for the withdrawal of capital contribution by the company, as well as the provisions for the perpetrator and the assisting person. Administrative penalties and criminal penalties for intermediaries. However, these problems appeared slightly later in China than in South Korea. Before the Supreme people's Court issued the provisions on the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (3), the legislative judgment and liability provisions on the act of capital contribution were rather vague. Of course, the newly issued "Judicial interpretation (3)" provides a relatively clear and specific provision on the content of the criteria for the determination of the withdrawal of capital, civil liability, and so on. It can be expected to control and prevent the withdrawal of capital to ensure the integrity of the company's capital. This paper makes a comparative study of the legal provisions and the solutions in judicial practice of China and South Korea, and tries to give some suggestions on the current legislation and judicial situation of China.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】