论公司司法解散程序

发布时间：2018-04-02 10:54

本文选题：公司司法解散程序　切入点：公司治理　出处：《太原科技大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：2005年《公司法》第183条从实体上赋予了股东诉讼解散公司的请求权,2008年《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)》仅仅明确了股东诉讼解散公司案件的诉讼事由、被告、调解和效力几个程序性问题。股东有解散公司的请求权已毫无疑问,但是具体在程序方面如何保障股东的请求权和是否拓宽司法解散的范围仍然没有一个完整的说法。因此,文章深入分析公司司法解散程序的理论基础,找出我国公司司法解散程序存在的主要问题,借鉴国外先进的立法、司法经验,细化我国现有的股东诉讼解散公司程序、拓宽公益性公司司法解散的管道,更好的指导司法实践。公司司法解散程序是在公司自治本身的局限性和国家行使经济管理职能的双重促进下产生的,其本质是国家对公司自治的调节。公司治理机制分为内部机制和外部协调机制。基于私法自治和契约自由理论,公司治理首先依靠内部机制,单纯的自治可能引发多数人的暴政,小股东权益受到侵害却无从救济。在自治失灵时,需要国家权力从外部对其进行调节。比较行政和司法两种国家权力方式,司法介入公司治理能弥补公司自治可能导致的不公平行为,是一种最为公正、有效的方式。但是司法手段并非万能,司法裁判的结果直接影响公司经营,甚至阻碍公司的发展,因此,司法介入公司治理要把握合理的限度,针对不同的司法解散案件适用诉讼和非诉讼的不同方式。在国外,公司司法解散程序依据保护权益的不同分为公法意义上的命令解散程序和私法意义上的判决解散程序。由于所保护的法益不同,这两种司法解散程序在提起主体、事由以及解决纠纷的具体方式等方面都存在较大区别。通过考察美国、日本等几个特例国家的司法解散程序,发现国外在司法介入公司治理限度把握、法官的自由裁量权和程序立法的成功经验上是值得我们借鉴的。此时,我国公司司法解散程序的缺陷凸现出来,主要包括效益的要求与程序正义的冲突、期望与现实的差距、缺乏非诉程序等。针对我国公司司法解散程序的现状,可以从两个方面完善公司司法解散程序:第一,从合理配置举证责任、防止恶意的解散诉讼和充实替代性救济等几个角度对现有股东诉讼解散公司程序进行改良;第二,选择具有我国特色的立法模式,建立公司司法解散的非诉程序,完整公司司法解散程序。
[Abstract]:Article 183 of the 2005 Company Law gives the shareholders the right to apply for the dissolution of the company. In 2008, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (2) only specified the shares. The cause of action in the case of dissolution of a company in an East China lawsuit, The defendant, mediation and effectiveness of several procedural issues. Shareholders have the right to dissolve the company no doubt, However, how to protect the shareholders' right of claim and whether to broaden the scope of judicial dissolution is still not a complete statement. Therefore, the article deeply analyzes the theoretical basis of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company. Find out the main problems existing in the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country, draw lessons from the advanced legislation and judicial experience of foreign countries, refine the existing shareholder lawsuit dissolution procedure of our country, widen the channel of judicial dissolution of the public welfare company. Better guide judicial practice. The judicial dissolution procedure of the company is brought about by the limitation of the company autonomy itself and the dual promotion of the economic management function of the state. Its essence is the state's regulation of corporate autonomy. Corporate governance mechanism is divided into internal mechanism and external coordination mechanism. Based on the theory of private law autonomy and freedom of contract, corporate governance depends first on internal mechanism. Simple autonomy may lead to the tyranny of the majority, but the rights and interests of minority shareholders are infringed but there is no remedy. When the autonomy fails, it needs the state power to regulate it from the outside. Judicial intervention in corporate governance can make up for the unfair behavior that may result from corporate autonomy, which is the most just and effective way. However, judicial means are not omnipotent. The result of judicial decision directly affects the management of the company and even hinders the development of the company. Therefore, judicial intervention in corporate governance should grasp reasonable limits and apply different ways of litigation and non-litigation to different cases of judicial dissolution. In foreign countries, the judicial dissolution procedure of a company is divided into public law order dissolution procedure and private law decision dissolution procedure according to the difference of protecting rights and interests. There are great differences in the cause of the matter and in the specific ways of resolving disputes. By investigating the judicial dissolution procedures in the United States, Japan and other special countries, we find that foreign countries have grasped the limits of judicial intervention in corporate governance. The judge's discretion and the successful experience of procedural legislation are worthy of our reference. At this time, the defects of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country are highlighted, including the conflict between the requirements of benefit and procedural justice, and the gap between expectation and reality. Lack of non-prosecution procedures, etc. In view of the present situation of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country, we can perfect the judicial dissolution procedure of the company from two aspects: first, from the reasonable allocation of the burden of proof, To prevent malicious dissolution of litigation and enrich alternative relief to improve the existing shareholder litigation dissolution of the company procedures; second, choose the legislative model with Chinese characteristics, establish the judicial dissolution of the company's non-litigation procedures, Complete judicial dissolution of the company.
【学位授予单位】：太原科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】