有限责任公司对股权内部转让担保的研究

发布时间：2018-09-12 09:33

【摘要】：在市场经济高速发展的今天,公司担保已成为企业市场经济活动的重要组成部分,对于促进交易的完成,保障债权的实现都起到了重要作用。近些年来,有限责任公司对股权内部转让的担保所引起的担保效力纠纷越来越多。在我国股权集中和公司治理等现状尚未完善的市场经济环境下,该担保可能会成为大股东或者控股股东侵占公司财产甚至抽逃出资的工具,从而损害公司债权人和其他中小股东利益。新《公司法》第16条,对于公司的担保进行了规制,但是由于该法条并未规定违反法定程序之后的法律后果,导致理论界和实务界对于该法条的解释和运用存在很大争议,即《公司法》第16条到底适不适用于有限责任公司对股权内部转让担保效力的认定。同时,该担保行为作为一种特殊的对外担保形式,不仅与《公司法》16条公司对外担保的程序要件之间有联系,而且还涉及到该担保是否构成公司内部股东抽逃出资的问题。本文针对以上问题,通过结合具体案例进行综合分析从而得出笔者对于上述问题解决的观点。本文通过最高人民法院审理的有限责任公司为本公司股东的内部股权转让提供担保效力认定的典型案例分析入手,基于该案一审、二审完全不同的判决结果进行分析,进而引出本文所要研究和解决的两个争议焦点。第一,有限责任公司违反法定程序为本公司股东之间股权转让提供担保的合同效力是否适用《公司法》16条的规定?第二,有限责任公司违反法定程序为公司内部股权转让提供的担保是否构成《公司法》35条规定的抽逃出资,从而导致担保合同无效?通过对新《公司法》16条进行解读,从该法条的规范性质和立法目的的角度进行对比分析得出该担保合同适用《公司法》16条的规定,而且该担保合同属于相对无效的合同。同时通过有限责任公司对股权内部转让的实体问题研究入手。结合对股东抽逃出资界定、特点、构成要件以及抽逃出资在实践中的典型行为的研究,最终从抽逃出资的主观与客观两个方面,得出本案中有限责任公司对股权内部转让担保不构成抽逃出资。最后的结语部分,在前述的基础上对于案例判决提出笔者自己的观点。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of market economy, company guarantee has become an important part of enterprise market economic activities. It plays an important role in promoting the completion of transactions and guaranteeing the realization of creditor's rights. Under the market economy environment with imperfect centralization and corporate governance, the guarantee may become a tool for the major shareholders or controlling shareholders to encroach on the company's property or even evade capital contributions, thus harming the interests of creditors and other small and medium shareholders. The article does not stipulate the legal consequences of the violation of legal procedures, which leads to a great controversy between the theoretical and practical circles on the interpretation and application of the article, that is, whether Article 16 of the Company Law is suitable for the determination of the effectiveness of the security for the internal transfer of shares by a limited liability company. It is not only related to the procedural requirements of the external guaranty in Article 16 of the Company Law, but also to the question whether the guaranty constitutes the withdrawal of capital contribution by the internal shareholders of the company. Starting with the analysis of the typical case of the court's trial of a limited liability company providing guarantees for the transfer of its shareholders'internal equity, based on the first instance of the case, the second instance of the case is completely different from the analysis of the results of the judgment, and then leads to the two controversial focus of this paper. First, the limited liability company violates the legal procedures. Does the validity of the contract for guaranteeing the transfer of shares between shareholders of a company apply to the provisions of Article 16 of the Company Law? Second, does the guarantees provided by a limited liability company for the transfer of shares within the company in violation of legal procedures constitute the withdrawal of capital contribution as stipulated in Article 35 of the Company Law, which leads to the invalidity of the guaranteed contract? From the point of view of the normative nature and legislative purpose of this law, this paper makes a comparative analysis and draws a conclusion that the guarantee contract is applicable to the provisions of Article 16 of the Company Law, and the guarantee contract is a relatively invalid contract. Finally, from the subjective and objective aspects of the withdrawal of capital contribution, it is concluded that the limited liability company does not constitute the withdrawal of capital contribution for the guarantee of internal transfer of shares in this case.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】