解散公司诉讼的几点思考

发布时间：2018-03-15 12:05

本文选题：公司法人人格　切入点：公司解散　出处：《人民司法》2007年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：正股东请求人民法院解散公司是公司解散的一种方式,属司法强制解散。股东请求人民法院解散公司的诉讼,称为解散公司诉讼。新公司法赋予了股东解散公司的请求权。公司法第一百八十三条规定:"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。"因旧公司法未赋予股东解散公司的请求权,人民法院未审理过此类案件,新公司法施行后,很多法院对审理此类案件缺乏经验。公司法第一百八十三条的规定又过于原则,法官对如何认定解散的条件感到困难。笔者在本文中对于如何审理解散公司诉讼案件进行一些初步的探讨。一、关于如何理解公司解散的事由公司法采取了概括的方式规定了公司司法解散的法定事由。一般概括式虽有助于弥补限定列举式的不足,但因其含义较为抽象,不易操作,且易滋生滥用的危险。所以,从实践的角度看,公司法的规定应当进一步明确。
[Abstract]:The shareholder's request to the people's court for the dissolution of the company is a form of dissolution of the company, which is a judicial compulsory dissolution. The shareholder requests the people's court to dissolve the company. The new company law gives shareholders the right to ask for the dissolution of the company. Article 183th of the company law states: "serious difficulties in the operation and management of the company will cause serious losses to shareholders' interests." If it cannot be resolved by other means, the shareholders who hold the voting rights of all shareholders of the company more than 10% may request the people's court to dissolve the company. "since the old company law did not give shareholders the right of claim to dissolve the company, People's courts have not tried such cases, and after the new Company Law came into effect, many courts lack experience in handling such cases. The provisions of Article 183th of the Company Law are too principled. It is difficult for the judge to determine the conditions of dissolution. In this paper, the author makes some preliminary discussions on how to try the lawsuit case of dissolution of company. As to how to understand the dissolution of a company, the Company Law has adopted a general way to define the legal reasons for the judicial dissolution of a company. Although the general formula helps to make up for the deficiency of the limited enumeration, it is not easy to operate because of its abstract meaning. Therefore, from the point of view of practice, the provisions of company law should be further clarified.
【作者单位】：福建省高级人民法院;
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】