公司司法解散制度法律实证研究
发布时间：2018-11-21 11:22
【摘要】：公司司法解散是公司法为了平衡少数股东和多数股东的利益而设立的制度之一。其实质是由司法强制介入公司治理,使处于公司僵局而不能通过其他救济途径解决的公司通过司法判决予以解散。我国2005年《公司法》引入了这一制度之后,《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(二)》1就公司司法解散请求权主体,请求事由,诉讼当事人的地位,调解制度等方面将该制度予以完善,但在司法实践中仍然存在着公司僵局内涵界定不明确,公司僵局条款被滥用,穷尽其他救济途径原则缺乏具体的认定标准等问题。本文从公司法司法解释二实施后的一则案例出发,结合英美法系和大陆法系国家的相关立法和司法实践,运用实证分析法,比较分析法,规范分析法等研究方法,就我国公司司法解散制度在审判实践中遇到上述相关问题进行了较为深入的探讨。 本文由引言导入案例,随后指出案例中存在的相关问题。第一部分对公司僵局的界定进行了探析,着重讨论由不可抗力导致公司经营出现困难所形成的“公司僵局”如何认定,公司章程关于股东表决方式的规定导致“股东杏决权僵局”如何处理,并分析了有效股东会决议的形式和实质。 本文第二部分介绍了公司僵局中的恶意诉讼。指出了公司僵局恶意诉讼出现的可能性,接着就侵权行为法中恶意诉讼侵权的概念,构成要件,以及恶意的认定标准和举证责任承担作出阐述,并就公司僵局中的恶意诉讼进行了界定。针对我国在公司僵局恶意诉讼方面立法的欠缺,提出了在侵权法,诉讼法,公司法等方面进行完善的建议。最后着重论述了日本公司法和韩国商法中的恶意诉讼担保制度和恶意诉讼损害赔偿制度以及对我国立法的启示。 本文第三部分公司解散诉讼中公司设立合同与公司章程的效力问题。并简要分析设立合同中关于合同失效的约定是否可以作为法院解散公司的理由,以及根据该约定提起解散公司诉讼的相关限制。 本文第四部分对穷尽其他救济途径这一原则进行了分析,并指出了我国就该原则在立法上的模糊性和缺乏可操作性。对穷尽其他救济途径是否需要作为提起公司解散诉讼的前提条件作出了讨论,并引入了美国司法实践中较常运用的强制股份收购制度和股权司法估价制度,旨在对穷尽其他救济这一原则提供相应的具体化,可操作的途径。 本文最后部分就上述问题得出相应的结论,提出笔者就公司僵局司法实践中相关问题的一些初步认识和思考。
[Abstract]:Corporate judicial dissolution is one of the systems established by the Company Law to balance the interests of minority shareholders and majority shareholders. Its essence is to intervene in the corporate governance by the judicial compulsion, so that the company which is in the corporate deadlock but can not be solved by other remedies is dissolved by judicial decision. After the introduction of this system in 2005, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court concerning the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (2) > 1, concerning the subject of the right of request for judicial dissolution of the company, The status of litigants, mediation system and other aspects of the system will be improved, but in judicial practice, there is still a lack of clear definition of the connotation of corporate deadlock, corporate deadlock clause has been abused. The principle of exhausting other ways of relief lacks specific standards of identification and so on. Starting from a case after the implementation of Company Law interpretation II, combining the relevant legislation and judicial practice of Anglo-American law system and civil law system countries, this paper applies empirical analysis method, comparative analysis method, normative analysis method and other research methods. This paper probes into the problems mentioned above in the judicial dissolution system of our country. This paper introduces the case by introduction, and then points out the related problems in the case. The first part analyzes the definition of corporate deadlock, focusing on how to determine the "corporate deadlock" caused by force majeure. How to deal with the deadlock caused by the provisions of the articles of association about the voting method of shareholders, and the form and substance of the effective shareholders' meeting resolution are analyzed. The second part of this paper introduces the malicious litigation in the corporate deadlock. This paper points out the possibility of malevolent litigation in company deadlock, and then expounds the concept of malicious litigation tort in tort law, the constitutive elements, the malicious identification standard and the burden of proof. At the same time, the malicious lawsuit in the deadlock of the company is defined. In view of the lack of legislation on malicious litigation of company deadlock in our country, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect the tort law, procedural law, company law and so on. Finally, the author discusses the malicious litigation guarantee system and the malicious litigation damages system in Japanese company law and Korean commercial law, and the enlightenment to the legislation of our country. The third part deals with the validity of the company's founding contract and articles of association in the lawsuit of company dissolution. It also briefly analyzes whether the contract invalidation agreement in the establishment contract can be used as the reason for the dissolution of the company by the court, and the relevant limitations of bringing the dissolution action according to the agreement. In the fourth part, the author analyzes the principle of exhausting other remedies, and points out the fuzziness and lack of maneuverability of this principle in our country. This paper discusses whether exhausting other remedies should be taken as a prerequisite for bringing a company dissolution action, and introduces the system of compulsory share acquisition and judicial valuation of equity, which is commonly used in American judicial practice. The aim is to provide a specific and operable approach to the principle of exhaustion of other remedies. In the last part of this paper, the author draws some conclusions on the above problems, and puts forward some preliminary understandings and reflections on the related problems in the judicial practice of corporate deadlock.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91
本文编号：2346815
[Abstract]:Corporate judicial dissolution is one of the systems established by the Company Law to balance the interests of minority shareholders and majority shareholders. Its essence is to intervene in the corporate governance by the judicial compulsion, so that the company which is in the corporate deadlock but can not be solved by other remedies is dissolved by judicial decision. After the introduction of this system in 2005, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court concerning the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (2) > 1, concerning the subject of the right of request for judicial dissolution of the company, The status of litigants, mediation system and other aspects of the system will be improved, but in judicial practice, there is still a lack of clear definition of the connotation of corporate deadlock, corporate deadlock clause has been abused. The principle of exhausting other ways of relief lacks specific standards of identification and so on. Starting from a case after the implementation of Company Law interpretation II, combining the relevant legislation and judicial practice of Anglo-American law system and civil law system countries, this paper applies empirical analysis method, comparative analysis method, normative analysis method and other research methods. This paper probes into the problems mentioned above in the judicial dissolution system of our country. This paper introduces the case by introduction, and then points out the related problems in the case. The first part analyzes the definition of corporate deadlock, focusing on how to determine the "corporate deadlock" caused by force majeure. How to deal with the deadlock caused by the provisions of the articles of association about the voting method of shareholders, and the form and substance of the effective shareholders' meeting resolution are analyzed. The second part of this paper introduces the malicious litigation in the corporate deadlock. This paper points out the possibility of malevolent litigation in company deadlock, and then expounds the concept of malicious litigation tort in tort law, the constitutive elements, the malicious identification standard and the burden of proof. At the same time, the malicious lawsuit in the deadlock of the company is defined. In view of the lack of legislation on malicious litigation of company deadlock in our country, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect the tort law, procedural law, company law and so on. Finally, the author discusses the malicious litigation guarantee system and the malicious litigation damages system in Japanese company law and Korean commercial law, and the enlightenment to the legislation of our country. The third part deals with the validity of the company's founding contract and articles of association in the lawsuit of company dissolution. It also briefly analyzes whether the contract invalidation agreement in the establishment contract can be used as the reason for the dissolution of the company by the court, and the relevant limitations of bringing the dissolution action according to the agreement. In the fourth part, the author analyzes the principle of exhausting other remedies, and points out the fuzziness and lack of maneuverability of this principle in our country. This paper discusses whether exhausting other remedies should be taken as a prerequisite for bringing a company dissolution action, and introduces the system of compulsory share acquisition and judicial valuation of equity, which is commonly used in American judicial practice. The aim is to provide a specific and operable approach to the principle of exhaustion of other remedies. In the last part of this paper, the author draws some conclusions on the above problems, and puts forward some preliminary understandings and reflections on the related problems in the judicial practice of corporate deadlock.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 徐爱国;;英美法中“滥用法律诉讼”的侵权责任[J];法学家;2000年02期
2 冷绍民,闫文军;论有限责任公司的司法解散程序[J];法学;1997年10期
3 束婷;;公司僵局及其防范与救济[J];国际市场;2007年12期
4 赵万一;吴长波;;论公司的司法解散[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2005年06期
5 张卫华;股东恶意诉讼的构成及其责任承担——一起案例引发的思考 上[J];中国律师;2003年05期
相关重要报纸文章 前3条
1 赵万一;[N];法制日报;2007年
2 中国政法大学教授、博士生导师 赵旭东;[N];人民法院报;2002年
3 ;[N];上海证券报;2005年
，本文编号：2346815
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/gongsifalunwen/2346815.html
