我国公司机会规则的司法适用研究

发布时间：2018-07-29 18:44

【摘要】：在商场如战场的今天,机会即金钱,时间即财富,是否能够紧抓商业机会成为决定公司成败的重要因素之一。然而伴随现代公司治理结构的转变,股东对公司的管理日渐限缩,而公司经营者的权力愈发膨胀,篡夺公司机会以损公肥私的现象屡见不鲜。因此英美法系国家在一系列判例法的基础上发展出“禁止篡夺公司机会规则”1(Corporate Opportunity Doctrine),用以限制公司经营者篡夺公司的商业机会。大陆法系国家也在逐步引入这一规则,我国于2005年修订的《中华人民共和国公司法》(以下简称“公司法”)正式引入该规则,从而更加完善了董事的忠实义务,有较大革新意义,此外,2013年公司法修改继续保留了此项规定。然而,公司机会规则作为一个公司和经营者之间分配财产权利的机制,即使在英美国家,仍被视为最难懂、最有争议的法律领域之一。我国作为后期进行法律移植的国家,如何在成文法背景下将引入的法律制度与本土司法实践更好地结合适用,更是一大挑战。公司机会规则内涵丰富,我国公司法虽然规定了禁止董事、高级管理人员篡夺公司机会,但寥寥四十余字过于原则化,远不足以阐明其具体含义,比如公司机会规则的法理依据、认定标准、抗辩事由等诸多方面都存有严重的不足之处,导致实务操作性弱,亟待进一步的探究。有鉴于此,本文拟以公司机会规则在我国的司法适用为研究视角,辅之以英美法系相关制度的经验介绍,通过实证研究发现公司机会规则在我国司法适用中存在的种种问题,并逐一提出解决方案,以期完善公司机会规则应有的实践意义,提高我国的公司治理水准。本文包括导论、正文和结语三部分。其中,正文部分的结构如下:第一章,问题的提出。通过“林承恩与李江山等损害公司利益纠纷案”这一代表性的案例导引,针对其两审法院“同案不同判”的现象作简要介绍与评析,继而揭示公司机会规则在我国司法适用面临的重重难题。第二章,简明阐述公司机会规则的理论内涵。包括概念界定、法律属性、理论基础三方面。公司机会规则虽由来已久,但其概念界定一直较为模糊,亟待明确。公司机会受法律保护并不是因为其具有传统民法上的财产和权利属性,而是因为公司相对于经营者而言拥有的特殊权利。此外公司机会规则对减少代理成本、提高整体经济效率有着重要作用。第三章,集中于我国公司机会规则司法适用的现状梳理。通过我国审判实践中大量的案例汇总,揭示其在我国司法适用的不足之处。包括义务主体的不周延、认定标准的不统一、举证责任分配不均以及抗辩事由的缺席等方面。第四章,深入剖析公司机会规则在我国司法适用难的深层原因。无可否认,目前我国立法的匮乏与模糊性是一方面,而法官判案时的专业素养、畏难心理以及可能充当的“公共政策的法院”角色则可能是另一方面。其次,公司机会规则适用时,常常涉及到商业判断,此时公司治理的司法介入尚存在诸多难点。第五章,系统阐述我国公司机会规则的重构,这是本文的核心部分。第一,在义务主体方面,建议将独立董事、控股股东、实际控制人和监事纳入规制范围。在权利主体方面,公司自然应受到公司机会规则保护,但有限责任公司与股份有限公司应受到宽严不同的规则约束。第二,主要探讨该规则的行为规范,将篡夺行为及抗辩事由明确化。第三,结合公司治理中的信息不对称的因素考量,建议法院灵活分配举证责任。第四,在公司机会规则与竞业禁止规则的辨析适用上,建议目前以竞业禁止规则优先适用为宜。
[Abstract]:In the market such as the battlefield today, opportunity is money, time is wealth, whether it can grasp the business opportunities is one of the important factors to determine the success or failure of the company. However, with the change of the modern corporate governance structure, the shareholders' management of the company is increasingly limited, and the power of the company operators is expanding, usurping the company opportunity to lose the public's wealth and wealth. The common law countries have developed "Corporate Opportunity Doctrine" on the basis of a series of case law, so as to restrict the usurpation of company business opportunities by the company operators. The civil law countries are also introducing this rule gradually. China revised the Chinese people in 2005. This rule is formally introduced to the state company law (hereinafter referred to as the "company law") to further improve the director's duty of loyalty, which is of great significance. In addition, in 2013, the amendment of the company law continued to retain the regulation. However, the company opportunity rule is a mechanism for distribution of property rights between a company and the operator, even in the Anglo American country. It is still regarded as one of the most difficult and most controversial areas of law. As a country in which the legal system will be introduced in the context of the law of grammar, it is a great challenge to combine the application of the legal system and the local judicial practice in the context of the law. The company law has a rich connotation, although our company law stipulates the prohibition of the directors and the senior management. The staff usurped the company opportunity, but more than 40 words are too principled. It is far from enough to clarify its specific meaning, such as the legal basis of the company's opportunity rule, the standard of identification, the defense and other aspects, which have serious shortcomings, which lead to the weak practical operation and need to be further explored. The rule in our country's judicial application is the research perspective, supplemented by the experience of the Anglo American law system, and through empirical research, it finds all kinds of problems existing in the application of the corporate opportunity rule in our judicial application, and puts forward the solutions one by one, in order to improve the practical significance of the company opportunity rules and improve the level of corporate governance in our country. This article includes three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The structure of the text is as follows: the first chapter, the question is put forward. Through the representative case guidance of "Lin Cheng en and Li Jiangshan and other cases of damage to the company's interests", a brief introduction and analysis of the phenomenon of "different cases of the same case" in the court of two instance is briefly introduced and analyzed, and then the company opportunity is revealed. In the second chapter, the theoretical connotation of the rule of opportunity of the company is briefly expounded. It includes three aspects: concept definition, legal attribute, and theoretical basis. Although the company opportunity rule has a long history, the definition of corporate opportunity is vague and needs to be clearly defined. The property and the property of the civil law, but because the company has the special rights relative to the operator. In addition, the company opportunity rule plays an important role in reducing the agency cost and improving the overall economic efficiency. In the third chapter, it concentrates on the current situation of the judicial application of the company opportunity rule in China. The cases are summarized to reveal the shortcomings of the judicial application in our country, including the discontinuity of the subject, the disunity of the standards, the unequal distribution of the burden of proof and the absence of the defences. The fourth chapter analyzes the deep reasons for the difficulties in the application of the company's opportunity rules in our country. Fuzziness is on the one hand, and the judges' professional accomplishment, the fear of difficulty and the possible role of the "public policy court" may be the other. Secondly, when the company opportunity rule is applicable, it often involves business judgment. At this time, there are many difficulties in the judicial intervention of corporate governance. The fifth chapter, the systematic exposition of our company The core part of this article is the reconstruction of opportunity rules. First, in the subject of obligation, it is suggested that independent directors, controlling shareholders, actual controllers and supervisors should be included in the scope of regulation. In the subject of rights, the company should be protected by the rules of opportunity of the company, but the limited liability company and the Limited by Share Ltd should be subject to the rules of width and severity. Second, mainly discuss the rules of the rules, and make the usurpation and defense clear. Third, combining the factors of information asymmetry in the corporate governance, it is suggested that the court assign the burden of proof flexibly. Fourth, on the application of the discrimination and analysis of the company opportunity rule and the prohibition rule of competition, it is suggested that the prohibition rule should be given priority at present. The application is suitable.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】