董事勤勉义务法律标准研究

发布时间：2018-09-12 10:27

【摘要】：法律标准是董事勤勉义务制度中的核心问题。我国公司法虽然明确了董事的勤勉义务,但由于法律标准缺乏相应的规定,义务就可能被虚化。因此,要使得勤勉义务真正能够约束董事行为,就必须制定具体的法律标准。 “理性人标准”是董事勤勉义务法律标准制度中的根源性问题。本文从这一问题切入,从法学方法论的角度,讨论“理性人标准”的正确界定方法,比较各种勤勉义务标准模式的优缺点,总结董事勤勉义务法律标准的具体内容,为董事在履行勤勉义务提供了合理的行为模式,也为法官审理此类案件拟定较为详尽的司法审查标准,使得董事的经营管理活动尽可能为公司带来最大利益。遵循以上的写作思路,全文共分为四个部分。第一部分主要是对勤勉义务法律标准的本质与界定方法的探讨。在坚持勤勉义务来源于侵权法的“理性人”假设的前提下,总结出勤勉义务法律标准的三个特征：普通的标准、具体的标准及事前的标准。而这些特征又给界定勤勉义务法律标准带来一个逻辑问题：商法规范的抽象性与商事实践的操作性之间的矛盾。在董事勤勉义务制度中,这对矛盾主要表现为行为标准与司法审查标准的分离。因此,必须结合行为标准与司法审查标准来界定勤勉义务的具体内容。第二部分主要比较勤勉义务法律标准的三种模式,在对主观标准模式、客观标准模式的优缺点进行了细致的分析后,提出现代公司治理中,勤勉义务法律标准应当坚持的模式。本文认为,在确定勤勉义务法律标准的模式时,应当将客观标准作为一般标准将,主观标准作为补充标准,同时通过其他法律文件对其进行调整。第三部分是从行为标准与司法审查标准两个方面,对董事勤勉义务法律标准的界定。具体而言,勤勉义务的行为标准可以从主观心态与外在行为两个方面加以界定；而司法审查标准可以归结为时间和关注标准、谨慎行事标准以及依赖标准。行为标准是董事履行勤勉义务的行为模式,而司法审查标准是法官判断勤勉义务履行情况的基本准则。第四部分主要是对我国勤勉义务法律标准的完善。针对我国董事勤勉行为标准不合理,以及司法标准的缺失两个主要问题,提出完善我国勤勉义务法律标准的建议。完善勤勉义务行为标准主要措施包括：增加对董事主观心态的规定,规定董事的基本技能要求,改进我国董事出席董事会会议制度,强调董事对公司信息的获取,明确董事的监督义务等。对于引进勤勉义务司法审查标准而言,本文认为应当考虑我国公司治理与法治进程的实际情形,通过判例与司法解释相结合的形式引进司法审查标准。
[Abstract]:The legal standard is the core problem in the system of diligent duty of directors. Although the company law of our country clarifies the duty of diligence of directors, the obligation may be fictitious because of the lack of corresponding stipulation in the legal standard. Therefore, in order to make the duty of diligence to be able to restrain the director's behavior, it is necessary to establish specific legal standards. The standard of rational person is the root problem in the legal standard system of director's diligence and obligation. From this point of view and from the angle of legal methodology, this paper discusses the correct definition method of "rational person standard", compares the advantages and disadvantages of various models of diligent obligation standard, and summarizes the concrete contents of the legal standard of director's diligence obligation. It provides a reasonable behavior model for the directors to perform their duty of diligence, and also provides a detailed judicial review standard for judges to hear such cases, so that the management activities of directors can bring the greatest benefit to the company. Following the above ideas, the full text is divided into four parts. The first part mainly discusses the essence and defining method of the legal standard of diligence obligation. On the premise of insisting on the assumption that diligence comes from the "rational person" in tort law, this paper summarizes three characteristics of the legal standard of diligence: common standard, concrete standard and prior standard. These characteristics bring a logical problem to the definition of the legal standard of diligence obligation: the contradiction between the abstraction of commercial law norms and the operation of commercial practice. In the system of diligent duty of directors, this contradiction is mainly manifested in the separation of standards of conduct and standards of judicial review. Therefore, we must combine the standards of conduct with the standards of judicial review to define the specific content of diligence obligations. The second part mainly compares the three models of the legal standard of diligence obligation. After analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the subjective standard model and the objective standard model, the author puts forward the model that should be adhered to in the legal standard of diligence obligation in modern corporate governance. This paper holds that, in determining the model of the legal standard of diligence obligation, the objective standard should be taken as the general standard and the subjective standard as the supplementary standard, and at the same time it should be adjusted through other legal documents. The third part defines the legal standard of director's diligence from two aspects: the standard of conduct and the standard of judicial review. Specifically, the standards of diligence can be defined from two aspects: subjective mentality and external behavior, while judicial review standards can be summed up as time and attention standards, standards of prudence and reliance standards. The standard of conduct is the behavior pattern of the director to fulfill the duty of diligence, and the standard of judicial review is the basic criterion for judge to judge the performance of the duty of diligence. The fourth part is the perfection of the legal standard of diligence obligation in our country. In view of the unreasonable standards of diligent conduct of directors in China and the lack of judicial standards, some suggestions are put forward to perfect the legal standards of diligence and obligation in China. The main measures to improve the standards of diligent and compulsory conduct include: increasing the regulations on the directors' subjective mentality, stipulating the directors' basic skill requirements, improving the system of directors' attendance at the directors' meetings, emphasizing the directors' access to company information, and improving the system of directors' attendance at the directors' meetings. Clear supervision obligations of directors, etc. As for the introduction of the standards of diligent judicial review, this paper holds that we should consider the actual situation of the process of corporate governance and the rule of law in our country, and introduce the standards of judicial review through the combination of jurisprudence and judicial interpretation.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】