股权质押合同效力研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 07:00

本文选题：股权质押 + 合同效力　；参考：《北方工业大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文分为六个部分。第一部分介绍了股权质押融资活动现状和存在的潜在风险。我国的股权质押制度十分混乱,在实践中不按规定,随意操作的也比较严重。这种混乱不仅表现在行政管理上,还表现在法律规定上,而且由于法律规定的不明晰,往往导致同案不同判的状况,这又在一定程度上阻碍了股权质押的担保功能、融资功能难以实现,不利于助推实体经济发展。第二部分明确了股权质押的理论基础。首先明确股权质押应当是物权。其次,股权质押物权变动规则上应当采用分原则。第三部分简单的分析了股权质押合同与股权质权的关系,通过案例分析表明我国司法实践中已经将债权行为与物权行为进行了区分,事实上承认了"物权形式主义"。接下来的第四、五部分按照合同的效力状态,分别讨论了股权质押合同无效、应当有效情形。在合同无效部分主要就股权质押和股权转让的关系进行了梳理,认为股权质押与股权转让应当脱离,在法律上没有相互关联的必要性。通过案例分析、梳理各项规定之后得出,股权质押合同不应受《公司法》16条、71条的限制,未经审批的外资企业股权质押合同也应当有效的结论。隐名股东与名义股东、未实缴出资股东与瑕疵出资股东虽然从表面上看对股权都有无权处分的可能,但都应认定为有效合同,而非效力待定的合同。最终,笔者通过研究股权质押的相关案例,明确了司法实践中已经逐渐采用了分离原则与处分行为效力待定说,广泛承认合同的有效性。因此,应当充分考虑我国这种长期以来积累下的司法经验,及时修改相应的法律规则,为股权质押实现其制度价值提供保障。
[Abstract]:This paper is divided into six parts. The first part introduces the current situation and potential risks of equity pledge financing. Our country's stock right pledge system is very chaotic, in practice does not follow the stipulation, the random operation is also quite serious. This confusion is manifested not only in the administration, but also in the legal provisions. Due to the lack of clarity of the legal provisions, it often leads to different judgments in the same case, which to a certain extent hinders the guarantee function of the equity pledge. Financing function is difficult to achieve, not conducive to the development of the real economy. The second part clarifies the theoretical basis of equity pledge. First of all, it is clear that equity pledge should be real right. Secondly, the principle of division should be adopted in the rules of real right change of equity pledge. The third part simply analyzes the relationship between the equity pledge contract and the equity pledge right, and shows that the act of creditor's rights and the real right act have been distinguished in the judicial practice of our country through the case analysis, in fact, the "real right formalism" has been recognized. Then the fourth and fifth parts discuss the invalidity of equity pledge contract according to the validity of the contract. In the invalid part of the contract, the relationship between equity pledge and equity transfer is combed, and it is considered that equity pledge and equity transfer should be separated from each other, and there is no legal necessity for them to be related to each other. Through case analysis, it is concluded that the contract of equity pledge should not be restricted by Article 71 of Company Law, and that the contract of equity pledge of foreign capital enterprise without examination and approval should be effective. Although hidden shareholders and nominal shareholders, unpaid-up shareholders and defective shareholders may not have the right to dispose of the shares, they should be regarded as valid contracts, not as valid ones. Finally, by studying the relevant cases of equity pledge, the author makes clear that the separation principle and the validity of disposition have been gradually adopted in judicial practice, and the validity of the contract is widely recognized. Therefore, we should fully consider the judicial experience accumulated in our country for a long time, amend the corresponding legal rules in time, and provide the guarantee for the realization of the institutional value of equity pledge.
【学位授予单位】：北方工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】