股东大会决议不成立研究

发布时间：2018-04-30 01:19

本文选题：股东大会决议 + 决议效力　；参考：《中国政法大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：决议作为公司自治的重要表现形式,与自然人的意思表示不同,须在确保程序合法的情况下,遵循多数决原则作出。这不仅涉及私法自治与正当程序的结合,更是决议之所以具有效力的理论基础。基础动摇之时,决议的效力便存在瑕疵。但决议的特殊性致使无法适用法律行为效力瑕疵制度,须建立特别法上的规定。对此,我国《公司法》以决议可撤销与决议无效两种效力瑕疵类型予以规范,司法实践与理论发展均证明了该模式的缺陷,故新司法解释采纳了决议不成立制度。但理论与实践对于决议不成立的适用情形尚存疑虑,这正是本文试图解决的问题。本文以股东大会决议为研究对象,试图在实践基础上构建决议不成立的裁判规则。本文正文由四章组成。第一章分为三部分。第一部分是关于决议的一般法理。本文认为决议是一种法律行为,但其作为公司的意思表示形式,必然带有相应特性:即从团体性特点出发,遵从多数决原则作出的决议难以适用法律行为的效力瑕疵理论。此外,决议还具有商法外观主义,遵从效率至上、程序正当等特点。第二部分论述了决议的效力来源与内容,明确了作出决议应遵循的基本原则。第三部分根据前述总结了决议的效力瑕疵制度与法律行为的效力瑕疵制度不尽相同,我国对此在《公司法》上予以特别规定,采纳了“二分法”的立法模式。现相关司法解释的出台证明此前的立法模式存在困境,并相应建立起新的效力瑕疵制度。第二章从规范角度分析“三分法”立法模式下的决议不成立制度。本章主要分为三部分,第一部分是以决议无效制度、决议可撤销制度与决议不成立制度的规范对象为基础进行区分,剥离出决议可撤销与决议不成立。第二部分是以两种制度在实践态度与价值导向上存在差异,将决议不成立制度与决议可撤销制度进行区分。第三部分从我国《公司法》就作出决议所需的相关程序规定出发,对决议不成立的瑕疵事由作初步分析,在论述决议不成立制度具有独立化价值的同时,为实证研究指明方向。第三章以第二章结果为研究指引,以实证研究为方法,对收集到的案例进行处理。本章首先总结出法院认定的决议不成立裁判中所涉瑕疵事由,而后结合前文所述结论,对瑕疵事由的相关性进行分析。本章分为四部分。第一部分阐明认定决议不成立或以程序认定决议无效的案例中涉及的瑕疵事由。第二至第四部分,以召集为逻辑起点,对会议召集、会议召开、会议表决各阶段所涉瑕疵事由依时序进行分析。本章分析力图逻辑自洽,避免混淆各项瑕疵事由,试图确立足以认定决议不成立的关键性瑕疵,为决议不成立适用情形的构造打下基础。第四章以司法解释相关草案为参考,分析各版本的修改沿革的意义与原因,确定最具合理性的决议不成立瑕疵类型,并从分析中挖掘立法者的内心真意与司法解释的体例构造。本章对司法解释送审稿从决议成立要件角度进行解释,覆盖决议作出的各个阶段,且要件彼此不存在交叉,后置位瑕疵以前置位程序合法为基础。据此,本章结合第三章研究结果,将细节性的瑕疵事由抽象至要件性的瑕疵事由,借此明确与丰富司法解释的适用情形,力图构建起较为完善的决议不成立裁判规则。
[Abstract]:As an important manifestation of the autonomy of the company, the resolution is different from that of the natural person. It must be made in accordance with the majority rule in the case of ensuring the legitimacy of the procedure. This not only involves the combination of the autonomy of the private law and the due process, but also the theoretical basis for the validity of the resolution. But when the foundation is shaken, the validity of the resolution is defective. The particularity of the resolution makes it impossible to apply the defect system of legal action effect, and the special law must be set up. In this case, the company law of China is regulated by the two types of effectiveness defects that are revocable and invalid, and the judicial practice and theoretical development all prove the defect of the model, so the new judicial interpretation adopts the unestablished system of the resolution. However, the theory and practice still have doubts about the application of the unfounded resolution. This is the problem that this article tries to solve. This article takes the resolution of the shareholders meeting as the research object and tries to build the rule of judgment which is not established on the basis of practice. The text of this article is composed of four chapters. The first chapter is divided into three parts. The first part is about the general resolution. This article holds that the resolution is a legal act, but as the expression of the company's meaning, it must have the corresponding characteristics: that is, from the group characteristics, the resolution which is difficult to apply to the legal act of the resolution which is difficult to apply to the decision made by the majority decision. In addition, the resolution also has the commercial appearance, the efficiency first, the proper procedure, and so on. The second part discusses the source and content of the validity of the resolution, and clarifies the basic principles to be followed in the resolution. The third part, according to the foregoing, concludes that the validity flaw system of the resolution is not the same as that of the legal act, which is specially stipulated in the company law and adopted the legislative model of the "dichotomy". The present relevant judicial interpretation proves that the previous legislative mode has a dilemma and the new effect defect system is established accordingly. The second chapter analyzes the non establishment of the resolution under the legislative mode of the "three division" from the standard angle. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part is a decision to resolve the invalid system and the resolution revocable system and resolution. The second part is the difference between the two systems in the practice attitude and the value orientation, and the difference between the non establishment system and the resolution revocable system. The third part is related to the resolution of the company law in the third part. In order to make a preliminary analysis of the imperfections that are not established in the resolution, the third chapter takes the results of the second chapter as the research guidance and the empirical research as the method to deal with the collected cases. This chapter first summarizes the resolution of the court's decision. This chapter is divided into four parts. The first part is divided into four parts. The first part clarifies the defects involved in the case that the resolution is not established or the resolution is invalid by the procedure. Second to fourth points are called in order to convene the logical starting point and convene the meeting. On the basis of the fourth chapters, the fourth chapters take the relevant draft of judicial interpretation as a reference and analyze each of the relevant draft of judicial interpretation. The meaning and reason of the revision of the version, to determine the most reasonable resolution does not establish the defect type, and excavate the body structure of the inner true meaning and judicial interpretation of the legislator from the analysis. This chapter explains the judicial interpretation from the angle of the establishment of the resolution, covers the stages of the decision and does not exist in each other. In this chapter, this chapter combines the results of the third chapters to abstract the details of the defects to the essentials, to clarify and enrich the application of the judicial interpretation, and to build a more perfect resolution that does not establish the rules of refereeing.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】