股东会决议效力诉讼问题探析

发布时间：2018-02-11 21:45

本文关键词： 股东会决议效力诉讼裁量驳回制度决议不成立之诉确认决议有效之诉　出处：《华东政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：股东会是公司的最高权力机构,股东会决议一经有效作出,即上升为公司意志,有约束公司及其机关的效力,对于公司、股东及其他利害关系人都会产生重要的影响。因此,股东会决议的程序和内容均应合法、公正,才不至于损害中小股东和公司的利益。但是,现实中股东会的运作并不尽如人意,由此产生的股东会决议效力纠纷亦呈上升趋势。由于我国新《公司法》(2005年修订,下同)第22条的内容比较简单粗陋,存在原则性较强、操作性较差等问题,导致实务中法院在审理各种纷繁复杂的股东会决议效力诉讼案件时,不可避免地出现了一定程度的混乱,司法不统一的现象比较严重,需要我们对此加以研究并进行完善与规范。为此,本文拟对股东会决议效力诉讼中存在的一些较突出的司法不统一的问题进行探析。本文共分为三部分,包括引言、正文和结语。引言主要说明笔者选题的意义和本文构思的基本思路。正文由四章组成。第一章简要介绍了股东会决议效力诉讼的类型,分别介绍了域外的“二分法”与“三分法”,以及我国立法规定及司法现状。第二、三、四章分别论述了轻微瑕疵决议撤销之诉之裁量驳回问题、伪造决议不成立之诉问题、确认决议有效之诉问题。为了论述需要,这三章都按照同样的线索展开,即每章分为四节,先以相关案例为切入点提出问题,接着对问题展开探讨,然后回应案例,最后提出立法建议。对于第二章轻微瑕疵决议撤销之诉之裁量驳回问题,笔者认为裁量驳回制度有其独立存在的价值,法院对决议撤销之诉行使裁量驳回权,不仅不会因此否定股东行使撤销权,还有利于平衡公司与股东的利益,符合司法居中裁决原则,值得肯定。建议我国应尽快通过司法解释明确该制度的适用标准。对于第三章的伪造决议不成立之诉问题,笔者认为伪造决议属于决议不成立,并具体分析了伪造决议不宜视为无效或可撤销处理的理由和困局,建议我国立法应尽快增设决议不成立之诉。对于第四章的确认决议有效之诉是否可以受理的问题,笔者认为法院不宜受理确认决议有效之诉,否则不仅不符合确认之诉基本法理、有违民诉程序正当性要求,也违背了公司法立法本意和司法介入初衷,阻断了其他利害关系人的司法救济途径,建议我国应尽快通过司法解释明文规定法院不予受理确认决议有效之诉。结语部分,概括总结了笔者创作本文的中心思想。
[Abstract]:The shareholders' meeting is the supreme authority of the company. Once the resolution of the shareholders' meeting is made effectively, it will become the will of the company, which has the effect of binding the company and its organs, and will have an important impact on the company, the shareholders and other interested parties. The procedure and content of the shareholders' meeting resolution should be legal and just so as not to harm the interests of the minority shareholders and the company. However the operation of the shareholders' meeting is not satisfactory in reality and the disputes on the validity of the shareholders' meeting resolution arising therefrom are also on the rise. As the contents of Article 22 of the New Company Law of our country (revised in 2005) are relatively simple and crude, there are some problems such as strong principle and poor operability. As a result, in practice, when the court tries various complicated litigation cases of the validity of shareholders' resolutions, it inevitably appears a certain degree of confusion, and the phenomenon of judicial disunity is quite serious. Therefore, this paper intends to analyze some outstanding problems of judicial disunity in the litigation of shareholders' resolution validity. This article is divided into three parts, including introduction, Text and conclusion. The introduction mainly explains the significance of the author's topic and the basic idea of this paper. The text consists of four chapters. The first chapter briefly introduces the types of litigation for the validity of shareholders' meeting resolutions, introduces the "dichotomy" and "triple law" in foreign countries, as well as the legislative provisions and judicial status quo of our country. The four chapters respectively discuss the issue of the discretion to dismiss the action of revocation of the resolution with minor defects, the issue of the action of the false resolution against the validity of the resolution, and the issue of confirming the effective action of the resolution. In order to discuss the need, the three chapters are all carried out according to the same clue, that is, each chapter is divided into four sections. At first, the paper puts forward the questions from the relevant cases, then discusses the problems, then responds to the cases, and finally puts forward some legislative suggestions. As for the second chapter, the author thinks that the system of discretionary dismissal has its own value. The court will not deny shareholders the right of rescission. It is also beneficial to balance the interests of the company and the shareholders, and accord with the principle of judicial intermediation. It is suggested that our country should clarify the applicable standards of the system through judicial interpretation as soon as possible. The author thinks that the forgery resolution is untenable, and analyzes the reasons and difficulties that forgery resolution should not be regarded as invalid or revocable. It is suggested that the legislation of our country should set up as soon as possible the action of untenable resolution. The author thinks that the court should not accept the valid action of the confirmation resolution in Chapter 4th, otherwise it not only does not accord with the basic legal principle of the confirmation action, but also violates the legitimate requirement of the civil procedure. It also violates the original intention of legislation of company law and the original intention of judicial intervention, and blocks the way of judicial remedy of other interested parties. It is suggested that our country should make clear through judicial interpretation that the court shall not accept and confirm the effective action of the resolution as soon as possible. In the conclusion part, the author summarizes the main idea of this article.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】