股东财产与公司财产混同中股东责任研究

发布时间：2018-05-24 02:25

本文选题：财产混同 + 股东责任　；参考：《北京交通大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：股东的财产与公司财产的混同(以下简称财产混同)会对公司及公司债权人等造成不公正的损害。目前在公司法学理论界都对人格否认制度予以认可,这一点在我国公司法第二十条得以体现,可是我国公司法仅以第二十条对滥用公司独立性仅作了一个原则上的界定,六十三条也只是规定了一人公司当中发生财产混同时的股东责任。在实践当中存在举证困难、启动"公司法人人格否认制度"的标准存在不统一等向题,尤其是新形势下,新修订的公司法中对传统的资本原则造成了冲击,同时也对法人人格否认制度的适用带来了影响。针对上述提出的问题,笔者通过我国的近年来的司法实践和操作,针对上述问题提出具体的可行的建议。在本篇论文中,除引言和结语外,一共分为四大部分:首先,第一部分是对股东财产与公司财产混同的含义及历史发展做出简要概括,阐述其在美国、日本等国家的发展状况及其理论的发展和延伸。简要论述了"法人人格独立"的重要性及股东财产与公司财产混同的原因、危害性及表现形式。其次,第二部分中对股东财产与公司财产混同时的股东责任进行了论述。其中包括"法人人格否认制度",英美法上称为"刺破公司面纱",同时讲述了其理论的延伸及发展,即"三角刺破"、"反向刺破"等。再次,第三部分主要论述了当前虽然理论学说相对丰富,而在司法实践当中,股东财产混同与公司财产混同的现象屡见不鲜,而法人人格否认制度的运用却非常困难。作者从举证责任、启动法人人格否认制度的构成要件进行了论述,阐释了当前司法实践当中对于股东财产与公司财产混同时存在的举证困难和认定法人人格否认的标准不一,造成实践当中公司及其债权人的合法权益得不到应有的保护。最后,针对上述提出的问题,作者结合我国的司法实践,提出具体的合理化的建议,以弥补司法实践当中的依据缺失,具体包括的主要方面有:首先,应先明确财产混同的认定标准以防止司法实践当中产生的标准不一的问题;其次,借鉴当前民事诉讼法当中的公益诉讼制度,通过对财产混同中股东责任的特殊性的分析,扩大股东责任的承担范围以使权益受损害者得到应有的救济;最后,在股东承担责任时的举证责任上,通过对实践中举证责任存在的问题,通过举证责任倒置等形式完善股东责任的举证责任制度,以使得人格否认制度得到更好地落实。
[Abstract]:The confusion between the property of the shareholders and the property of the company (hereinafter referred to as the property confusion) will cause unjust damage to the company and the company's creditors. At present, in the theoretical circle of the company, the system of personality denial is recognized, which is embodied in the twentieth article of the company law in our country, but it is our company law that only uses twentieth articles to abuse the company alone. There is only one definition in principle, and the sixty-three article only stipulates the liability of stockholders at the same time in one person's company. In practice, there are difficulties in proof and the standard of starting "the system of denial of corporate personality" is not unified. Especially in the new situation, the newly revised Company law has the traditional capital. As a result of the impact, it also has an impact on the application of the legal personality denial system. In view of the above questions, the author puts forward concrete and feasible suggestions to the above questions through the judicial practice and operation of our country in recent years. In this paper, apart from the introduction and the conclusion, the author divides into four parts: first, the first part It is a brief summary of the meaning and historical development of the mixture of shareholder property and company property, and expounds its development and extension in the United States, Japan and other countries. The importance of "independent personality of legal person" and the reasons for the confusion between shareholders' property and company property, the harm and the form of expression are briefly discussed. Secondly, the second part The liability of shareholders' property mixed with the company property is discussed, including the "legal personality denial system", which is called "piercing the company veil" in Anglo American law, and tells the extension and development of its theory, namely "triangle piercing" and "reverse piercing". Again, the third part mainly discusses the theory that the theory is relatively abundant. In the judicial practice, in the judicial practice, the phenomenon of the mixed property of the shareholders and the property of the company is common, but the application of the system of disregard of legal personality is very difficult. The author expounds the constitutive requirements of the system of disregard of the legal personality from the burden of proof, and explains the confusion between the shareholders' property and the company property in the current practice of the law. At the same time, in order to make up for the lack of evidence in judicial practice, the author, in the light of the problems raised in our country, puts forward concrete and reasonable proposals to make up for the lack of evidence in judicial practice. The main aspects include: first, we should first clarify the standard of identification of property confusion in order to prevent the standard deviation from the judicial practice. Secondly, we should draw on the public interest litigation system in the current civil procedure law, through the analysis of the particularity of the shareholders' responsibility in the property mixing, and expand the scope of shareholders' responsibility to make the rights and interests. In the end, in the case of the burden of proof of the burden of proof in practice, the burden of proof of the burden of proof is perfected in the form of the burden of proof in practice, in order to make the system of personality denial better.
【学位授予单位】：北京交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】