有限责任公司隐名出资人股东资格确认之理论再探讨

发布时间：2018-03-01 04:37

本文关键词： 隐名出资行为权利构成法律行为商行为“内外有别双重标准” 隐名代理与不公开身份的代理金融领域出资　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：有限责任公司股东资格的认定关系到出资人在以公司为联结点的法律关系体系运作过程中的权利配置与责任负担。尽管2005年公司法对此问题在原有的基础上做了进一步的规定,但仍然显得比较原则,股东资格确认的难题仍未能得到彻底解决。更何况,长期以来的实践中公司运作不够规范,借他人之名行出资之实的隐名出资人普遍存在,而在如何认定隐名出资人资格的问题上我国现行法并未提供一个统一的标准,在一定程度上造成了司法上的混乱,也不利于公司的正常治理。2011年1月最高人民法院发布的《关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定(三)》(以下简称“公司法司释三”)对涉及名义出资人和隐名出资人之间、隐名出资人与公司或其他股东之间,以及隐名出资人与公司外部第三人之间的诸多关系进行了较为明晰的规定。通过其第23条和第25条规定的分析,可以看出司释三对此问题采用的的“类型化”的处理模式,体现的仍然是之前我国各地方高院通常采用的“内外有别,双重标准”的原则。但这样的“双重标准”原则未免过于原则化,因为在实践中很有可能“内”与“外”并不能十分明显的区别开来,“双重标准”也就很得到彻底的适用。并且商事实践本身具有灵活性与复杂性,通过事先确定的“标准”尽管可以比较明确的界定法律关系,但在商事实践里未免有僵化之虞。因此,若不将此问题的探讨仅局限在对司法的实证分析,而是进行更为广泛的学理研究,则可发现代理制度的运用不失为处理该问题的第二进路。而这里的代理制度与大陆法系传统民事代理制度有所区别,主要是指英美法系的隐名代理与不公开代理身份的代理——相较于前者,后者在商事代理中运用的更为广泛。况且,我国《合同法》对其部分引进也使该进路分析具有一定的可实施性。对这两种进路的阐述,笔者并非想仅为罗列,关键是还要对两者进行分析比较。孰优孰劣,笔者不敢妄加推断,只期于比较中发现各自的优越性,并对完善该问题处理方法提供另一种可行的思维的角度。综上,本文拟分四个部分由浅入深的进行探讨。第一部分是问题的提出,通过国内几件较为典型的隐名持股案例引出本文将要讨论的主题,即隐名出资人股东资格确认。由于股东资格确认与股东权利行使是紧密相连的,经常会被误认为拥有股东权利,比如参加了分红或者表决就应该被确认股东资格,然而股东资格确认与股东权利行使不是完全等同的概念,它们分别属于权利构成中的权属与权能范畴,有权属不一定行使完全的权能,当然行使权能也不能认为有该权属,因此第二部分将主要从权利本身构成方面来说明,一是隐名出资人尽管不直接行使股权某些权能,但其股东资格之确认仍具可能性与合理性;二是隐名出资人的股东确认也不能以股权的直观行使为出发点。而由于股东身份基于出资人的出资行为而生,因此从出资行为本身为出发点才是对该问题分析的基点。对于何谓“出资”,在我国现行法上并未有一个明确的概念,主流教科书与著作中也没有一个具体的定义。因此第三部分从出资行为本身出发,以法律行为和商行为的核心要素和性质为基础对出资行为进行界定,进而探讨“隐名出资行为”的概念和性质。但隐名出资人问题不应仅仅停留在出资行为法理上的抽象讨论,其来源于实践,也应回归实践,因此第四部分将分别在第三章以出资行为为出发点来探讨两种路径。其一,根据出资行为既具有法律行为的性质又具有商行为的性质,因此形成体现意思主义与外观主义双重属性“区别说”;其二,针对隐名出资行为这一特定的出资行为来说,它还是一种商事代理行为,因此形成与以民商法代理制度为基石的隐名代理与不公开身份代理说。尽管都是着眼于“行为”(而非“权利”)本身,但由于关注的方面不同,这两种路径都分别对实践中迫切需要解决的隐名出资人的股东资格确认问题给予了回答,笔者在此基础上也对两种路径进行比较。并给出笔者对此问题的总体思考,同时认为金融领域的隐名出资因行业特殊性应从严规定。
[Abstract]:The qualification of shareholders of limited liability company in relation to the investor rights allocation and burden of responsibility legal system in connection process of the operation of the company. Although to make further provisions of the company law in 2005 this issue on the basis of the original, but it is still too principle, problem of shareholder qualification confirmation is still not been completely solution. Moreover, the long-standing practice of company operation is not standard, by the name of others for contribution of the real dormantinvestor widespread, and on how to identify the dormantinvestor qualification on the issue of China's current law does not provide a unified standard, causing judicial chaos to a certain extent, it is not conducive to the normal management of.2011 company in January issued by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of the "People's Republic of China" company law "Provisions (three) (hereinafter referred to as" the company " Our method release three ") to the nominal investor and the dormantinvestor, between the dormantinvestor and the company or other shareholders, as well as many dormant relationships between the people and the third person outside the company to carry out the provisions of the comparativedistinctive. Through analysis of the article twenty-third and the provisions of article twenty-fifth, we can see our release process three this problem using the" type ", is still reflected in China before the local court usually used" differentiated, double standards "principle. But the principle of" double standard "is too principled, because in practice is likely to be" inside "and" outside "and not very clear from the" double standard "is fully applicable. And commercial practice itself has the flexibility and complexity, by a predetermined" standard "although the law can more clearly defined The relationship, but in practice it is inflexible in commercial danger. Therefore, if not to discuss the problem only in the empirical analysis of the judicial, but more extensive studies, it can be found using the proxy system is to deal with the problems of the second approach. Here the agency system and the continental law system the traditional civil agency system is different, mainly refers to the anonymous agent in Anglo American law system with the open agent agent -- compared to the former, the latter is used in the commercial agent is more widely used. Besides, our country "contract law" part of the introduction to the approach of analysis has a certain of this can be implemented. Two approaches to the elaboration, the author is not only to list, the key is also on the two comparative analysis. The merits, I dare not make inferences, only in their respective superiority is found, and the improvement of the problem The method provides another possible perspective of thinking.
In conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts. The first part is from the shallower to the deeper into the problem, through the domestic several typical cases of dormant shareholders leads to the topics that will be discussed, namely the dormant shareholder qualification. The confirmation of the qualification of shareholder and shareholder rights exercise is closely linked, is often mistaken that has the rights of shareholders, such as dividends or participated in the vote should be to confirm the qualification of shareholders, however, shareholder's qualification and rights of shareholders to exercise not identical concepts, they belong to the category of ownership and power of rights, ownership is not necessarily fully exercise the power of the exercise of power, also cannot think of the ownership, therefore the second part will be mainly from the right to explain itself, one is the dormantinvestor although not directly exercised some powers of equity, but the shareholder qualification confirmation Still has the possibility and rationality; two is the dormant shareholders to confirm nor directly exercise equity as a starting point. Because of the identity of the shareholders capital investment behavior based on students, so from the investment behavior itself as the starting point is the basis for the analysis of problems. What is the "investor" in me current law does not have a clear concept, do not have a specific definition of mainstream textbooks and writings. Therefore the third part embarks from the investment behavior itself, with the core elements and the nature of the legal behavior and business behavior based on the definition of investment behavior, and then discusses the concept and nature of dormant investment behavior "but the dormantinvestor problem should not only stay in the capital abstract discussion behavior legal theory, which comes from practice, should also return to practice, so the fourth part respectively in the third chapter of investment behavior To discuss two ways. First, according to the nature of investment behavior not only has the nature of legal acts and business behavior, thus reflect the meaning doctrine and appearance attributes "doctrine of difference"; second, the dormant investment behavior this specific investment behavior, it is a kind of commercial agents, dormant the agent therefore to the formation and the civil law system as the cornerstone of the agency and undisclosed agency said. Despite all the focus on the "behavior" (instead of "right") itself, but because of concerns, these two paths are respectively on the urgent need to solve in the practice of dormant shareholder qualification confirmation of people give the answer, the author also carried out on two paths. And gives the overall thinking on this issue, at the same time that the financial sector due to the particularity of the industry should be dormantinvestment strict regulations.

【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

【引证文献】