公司司法解散之探析

发布时间：2018-09-01 19:45

【摘要】：在我国,公司是指由股东或发起人依照《中华人民共和国公司法》(以下简称《公司法》)的有关规定而组建的,以营利为目的的企业法人组织。公司作为人们进行商业运作的一个载体,产生于人们的设立行为,消灭于解散。在理论上,公司的成立和解散都应取决于股东的意志。各国公司法保护股东依法成立公司的同时,均规定股东可以通过股东大会决议解散公司,然而,这种制度看似公平,在遵循了“资本多数决”原则的同时,中小股东在利益受损时渴望抽回资本、解散公司的愿望却被长期锁定。另外,当公司经营困难,董事、股东之间出现僵局时,势必会对公司和股东的利益造成更大损害。公司司法解散,本质代表了国家对经济生活的适度干预,当股东在公司中的权益被侵犯,公司又不能恢复股东权益、不能形成合意解散公司时,权益受侵害的股东就有权通过国家司法机关判决公司解散的救济方式维护自身的利益。我国2005年修订后的《公司法》的第一百八十三条对公司司法解散制度进行了明确的规定,赋予了法院可以根据股东的请求判决解散公司的权利。2008年5月5日最高人民法院通过了《关于适用中华人民共和国公司法若干问题的规定(二)》(以下简称《公司法司法解释(二)》)中又对公司司法解散做出了进一步的解释,解决了由于立法条文过于简单所带来的一些问题,本文以《公司法》第一百八十三条和《公司法司法解释(二)》中有关公司司法解散的条款为剖析对象,通过比较研究一些典型国家的有关立法揭示我国立法的不足与缺陷,反映其现状和存在的问题；同时借鉴国外相关制度运行状况,从法定解散事由、诉讼主体资格、司法解散后的清算等方面的构建来完善目前我国的公司司法解散制度。本文共分为四个部分：第一部分为公司司法解散的概念,从介绍公司司法解散的概念入手,简要阐述了公司司法解散的特征,即公司司法解散需当事人的申请而启动,并且已经穷尽其他救济方式时才可以提出,只有通过法院的判决才得以实现。在公司法律体系中,公司司法解散是有其重大的制度价值的。所以,本部分还介绍了公司司法解散的发展历程并对其价值加以分析,得出公司司法解散在本质上体现了国家司法权对经济生活的适度干预,规范了公司的经营及管理中的一些行为,对维护社会秩序,平衡相关利益主体之间的利益起着至关重要的作用。最后,本部分从三个方面即法理、民法、公司法分析了公司司法解散的理论基础。第二部分为外国(地区)公司司法解散的一些相关规定及分析。首先,介绍了公司司法解散在英美法系国家的发展状况；由于公司司法解散起源于英国,因此英美法系的公司司法解散已经趋于成熟,对我国只有短暂历史的公司司法解散来说是有很多值得借鉴的地方的。其次,则介绍了公司司法解散在大陆法系国家或地区,如日本、德国、韩国以及我国台湾地区的一些规定及实践的状况。然后针对两大法系进行了简要的比较分析。最后阐述了外国立法对我国公司司法解散的的启示。第三部分为我国有关公司司法解散的规定与分析。我国2005年《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。”由于这条规定过于笼统,在司法实践中有很多困难,因此2008年又出台了一些相关解释,针对《公司法》一百八十三条进行更为详尽的规定,使其在我国的立法及实践方面具有了更进一步的意义。这一部分主要是对公司法第一百八十三条及其相关解释进行分析,找出我国公司司法解散存在的一些问题。第四部分为对我国公司司法解散存在问题的评价及完善建议。本部分主要是进一步剖析我国公司司法解散中的解散事由、前置程序、诉讼中原被告是否适格、解散后的清算等方面所存在的一些问题,并且针对上述问题提出相应的建议。最后,为了避免股东滥用解散公司的诉权提出建立恶意诉讼防御机制。
[Abstract]:In China, a corporation is an enterprise legal person organization formed by shareholders or sponsors in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Company Law) for profit-making purposes. As a carrier of people's commercial operations, a corporation arises from the establishment of people's behavior and is eliminated from dissolution. The establishment and dissolution of a company should depend on the will of the shareholders. While protecting the shareholders to establish a company according to law, the company law of all countries stipulates that the shareholders can dissolve the company by resolution of the shareholders'general meeting. However, this system seems fair. Following the principle of "capital majority decision", the minority shareholders are eager to withdraw capital and dissolve the company when their interests are damaged. In addition, when the company is difficult to operate, the deadlock between directors and shareholders is bound to cause greater damage to the interests of the company and shareholders. When a company is dissolved by agreement, the shareholders whose rights and interests are infringed have the right to defend their own interests through the remedy of judging the dissolution of the company by the state judicial organ. Article 183 of the revised Company Law in 2005 clearly stipulates the system of judicial dissolution of the company and gives the court the right to adjudicate the company according to the request of the shareholders. On May 5, 2008, the Supreme People's Court adopted the Provisions on Several Questions Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (II). It further explained the judicial dissolution of a company and solved some problems arising from the simplicity of the legislative provisions. This article takes the articles on the judicial dissolution of a company in Article 183 of the Company Law and Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law (2) as the object of analysis, reveals the shortcomings and defects of our legislation through comparative study of the relevant legislation of some typical countries, reflects its current situation and existing problems, and at the same time, draws lessons from the operation of relevant systems abroad and obeys the law. Setting up the reasons for dissolution, the qualification of litigant subject and the liquidation after judicial dissolution will perfect the current judicial dissolution system of our country.
This article is divided into four parts.
The first part is the concept of judicial dissolution of a company. Starting with the introduction of the concept of judicial dissolution of a company, this paper briefly expounds the characteristics of judicial dissolution of a company, that is, the dissolution of a company is initiated by the application of the parties concerned and can only be put forward when other remedies have been exhausted, and can only be achieved through the judgment of a court. The judicial dissolution of a company is of great institutional value. Therefore, this part also introduces the development of the judicial dissolution of a company and analyzes its value. It is concluded that the judicial dissolution of a company essentially reflects the moderate intervention of the state's judicial power in economic life, standardizes some behaviors in the operation and management of a company, and is beneficial to the development of the judicial dissolution of a company. Protecting social order and balancing the interests of relevant stakeholders play a vital role. Finally, this part analyzes the theoretical basis of the judicial dissolution of a company from three aspects: jurisprudence, civil law and company law.
The second part is about the relevant provisions and analysis of the judicial dissolution of foreign (regional) companies. Firstly, it introduces the development of the judicial dissolution of Companies in Anglo-American law system countries; because the judicial dissolution of companies originated in Britain, the judicial dissolution of Companies in Anglo-American law system has become mature, and the judicial dissolution of Companies in China has only a short history. Secondly, it introduces some regulations and practices of corporate judicial dissolution in continental law system countries or regions, such as Japan, Germany, Korea and Taiwan. Then it makes a brief comparative analysis of the two legal systems. The revelation of dispersion.
The third part is about the provisions and analysis of the judicial dissolution of the company in our country.Article 183 of the Company Law of 2005 stipulates that if a company has serious difficulties in its operation and management, and if it continues to exist, it will cause serious losses to shareholders'interests, which can not be solved by other means, it will hold more than 10% of the voting rights of all shareholders of the company. Dong, can ask the people's court to dissolve the company. "Because this provision is too general, there are many difficulties in judicial practice. Therefore, in 2008, some relevant interpretations were issued, and more detailed provisions were made in accordance with Article 183 of the Company Law, so that it has a further significance in our legislation and practice. It mainly analyzes the Article 183 of corporate justice and its related interpretations, and finds out some problems existing in the judicial dissolution of Companies in China.
The fourth part is to evaluate and perfect the problems of judicial dissolution of corporations in China. This part mainly analyzes the reasons for dissolution of corporations in China, the pre-procedure, the plaintiff and defendant in the lawsuit are qualified, the liquidation after dissolution and other problems, and puts forward corresponding suggestions to these problems. Finally, in order to prevent shareholders from abusing the right to dissolve the company, a malicious litigation defense mechanism is proposed.
【学位授予单位】：东北财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】