公司司法解散制度建设研究

发布时间：2018-08-17 20:13

【摘要】：公司司法解散制度是现代公司法上一项非常重要的股东权利救济措施,体现了国家司法权力对公司内部自治的介入和干预。这一制度首先确立于英美法系的判例中,随后被大陆法系国家引入并改进,该制度发展到今天已远行了一百五十多年的历史,成为股东权利救济体系的重要组成部分。公司作为股东间自由契约的产物,其成立、变更或解散应当取决于所有股东的意愿。当公司的权益受到损害的时候,公司不能就恢复股东权益,股东也不能就解散公司达成一致意见时,权益遭受侵害的股东就应当有权通过各种救济方式来维护自身权利。而受损股东向法院提起申请,请求法院通过法定程序解散公司就是其中的一种救济方式。我国《公司法》第183条规定：“公司经营管理发生严重困难,继续存续会使股东利益受到重大损失,通过其他途径不能解决的,持有公司全部股东表决权百分之十以上的股东,可以请求人民法院解散公司。”该条的出台标志着公司司法解散制度在我国正式得以确立。这一制度的确立解决了当前我国人民法院处理公司司法解散案件无法可依的窘境状况,体现了公司法对公司僵局出现后对权益受侵害股东的保护。但是,由于历史和现实的种种原因,该条规定十分简单笼统,明显过于原则化,缺乏应用的可操作性,这既让当事人感到疑惑,也让法官深感为难。一方面导致股东权利的流失,另一方面也给司法实践带来一定程度的混乱和困难。鉴于此,两千年八年司法解释的规定意识到了以上问题,对《公司法》第183条的具体适用做出了更进一步的规定：公司持续两年以上无法召开股东会或者股东大会,公司经营管理发生严重困难的;股东表决时无法达到法定或者公司章程规定的比例,持续两年以上不能做出有效的股东会或者股东大会决议,公司经营管理发生严重困难的；公司董事长期冲突,且无法通过股东会或者股东大会解决,公司经营管理发生严重困难的;经营管理发生其他严重困难,公司继续存续会使股东利益受到重大损失的情形。这一司法解释一改原条文规定的抽象性、原则性,较为具休,但仍存在一些问题,使我国同法解散制度显得不够成熟,司法机关在适用法律时大相径庭,同时也面临诸多困境,给股东权利保护带来非常大的困难,归根结底还是很难体现司法救济的有效性与及时性。同时,由于大股东滥用权力的行为屡禁不止,小股东的权利维护和公司的经营管理现状令人十分担忧。针对我国司法解散制度的不足,本文通过对一个案例的研讨,对当前我国公司退出机制的困惑和缺陷进行思考,发现公司司法解散制度存在的不足及导致的弊端,同时对我国现行公司法关于公司司法解散的条款进行分析,界定公司司法解散的概念及其特征,进而挖掘出公司司法解散制度的价值功能和理论基础,阐述公司司法解散的适用条件,通过外国公司司法解散制度的比较研究,提出怎样对我国公司司法解散制度的立法更进一步完善的建议。
[Abstract]:Judicial dissolution of corporation is a very important remedy measure for shareholders'rights in modern corporation law, which reflects the intervention and intervention of state judicial power in corporation internal autonomy. This system was first established in the case of Anglo-American law system, then introduced and improved by the countries of continental law system. As a product of free contract between shareholders, the establishment, alteration or dissolution of a company should depend on the will of all shareholders. When the rights and interests of the company are damaged, the company can not restore the rights and interests of shareholders, and the shareholders can not reach an agreement on dissolution of the company. The shareholders whose rights and interests have been infringed shall have the right to defend their rights through various remedies, and the damaged shareholders apply to the court to dissolve the company through legal procedures is one of the remedies. If the shareholders'interests suffer heavy losses and cannot be solved by other means, the shareholders holding more than 10% of the voting rights of all shareholders of the company may request the people's court to dissolve the company. "The promulgation of this article marks that the system of judicial dissolution of the company has been formally established in China. The dilemma in dealing with cases of judicial dissolution of a company reflects the protection of shareholders whose rights and interests are infringed upon after the deadlock has arisen in the company law. However, due to historical and practical reasons, the provisions of this article are very simple and general, obviously too principled, and lack of operability in application, which makes both the parties confused and the judges confused. On the one hand, it leads to the loss of shareholders'rights, on the other hand, it also brings a certain degree of confusion and difficulties to judicial practice. The management and operation of the company are in serious difficulty at the Eastern Meeting or the shareholders'meeting; the shareholders' voting fails to reach the proportion prescribed by law or the articles of association; the effective resolutions of the shareholders'meeting or the shareholders' meeting can not be made for more than two years, and the management of the company is in serious difficulty; the directors of the company have long-term conflicts and are unable to pass the shareholders'meeting This judicial interpretation changes the original provisions of the abstract, principled and more relaxed, but there are still some problems that make the system of dissolution of the same law appear not to be. Mature enough, the judiciary in the application of the law is quite different, but also faced with many difficulties, to the protection of shareholders'rights brought great difficulties, in the final analysis, it is difficult to reflect the effectiveness and timeliness of judicial relief. The present situation is very worrying. In view of the deficiency of the judicial dissolution system in our country, this paper, through a case study, ponders over the puzzlement and defect of the company withdrawal mechanism in our country at present, finds out the shortcomings of the judicial dissolution system and the drawbacks caused by it. At the same time, the article on the judicial dissolution of the company in our country's current company law is carried out. This paper analyzes and defines the concept and characteristics of the judicial dissolution of a company, then excavates the value function and theoretical basis of the judicial dissolution of a company, expounds the applicable conditions of the judicial dissolution of a company, and through the comparative study of the judicial dissolution of a foreign company, puts forward some suggestions on how to further improve the legislation of the judicial dissolution of a company in China.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】