我国公司法中的资本维持原则

发布时间：2018-03-06 23:06

本文选题：资本维持原则　切入点：资本制度改革　出处：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：第十二届全国人大常委会于2013年12月28日通过《关于修改海洋环境保护法等七部法律的决定》,其中对公司法所做的修改自2014年3月1日起施行,其中最引人关注的是将公司注册资本的实缴制改为彻底的认缴制,以及废除法定注册资本最低限额。也就是说今后成立公司时不再硬性要求首期缴纳资本的比例和其余未缴资本的缴纳期限,而是完全由公司通过章程自行确定和执行。这次改革,动摇了我国一直以来坚持的所谓资本三原则的理论基础。这就给我们提出了一个问题,在实行彻底的认缴资本制之后是否依然需要坚持资本维持原则?取消了各类公司的最低注册资本限额,坚持资本维持是否还有意义?论文拟从资本维持原则的理论起源,基本内涵和功能的角度,借鉴联系国外理论和实践经验,对资本维持原则进行分析,探讨在公司法改革下的资本维持原则的理论进路,以及在实践中如何落实贯彻该原则,以达到保护债权人和活跃资本市场的双赢局面。我国自2005年公司法修改之后,政府不断放松对市场的管制,行政监管逐渐淡出,以促进资本市场的繁荣,我国的公司资本制度也从传统大陆法系的法定资本制逐渐向授权资本制靠拢。不仅仅是中国,大陆法系国家德国和日本在国际经济一体化的趋势中也松动了对公司资本的限制,其中2008年德国有限责任公司改革法的通过尤其引人关注,德国人不仅降低了法定最低注册资本额,还创造性的设立了一种新的无需注册资本的"企业主公司(Unternehmergesellschaft)",德国作为我国公司法的启蒙老师,我们有必要对德国的资本制度改革进行研究。日本资本制度经历了三度改革,对资本的规制由松到紧,之后又变松,其改革经验值得学习。而以美国为代表的授权资本制经过数百年的发展,已然形成了完善的资本运作和债权人保护系统,我们通过对原生的授权资本制进行研究,应该可以解决授权资本制在我国可能会出现的问题。资本维持原则并非专属于法定资本制,授权资本制也有资本维持的要求。我国进行资本制度改革之后,取消了最低注册资本限额,设立了完全的认缴制,但资本维持原则不应该被放弃,而是应当更加重视,以防范公司资本不足,从而保护公司债权人的利益。英美法系的授权资本制的繁荣归根于其契约精神高度发达的市场环境和事后救济机制的充分完善。我国正在进行资本制度改革,公司法的修改不是终点,后续的保障措施应当及时跟进,这样安全和效率才能兼顾。本论文通过对中外资本维持原则基本理论和司法实践进行对比研究,探寻资本原则的内涵。结合我国现如今的国情和司法实践,分析我国在公司法修改之后资本维持原则的理论进路,进而尝试解决关于资本维持在未来司法实践中可能出现的问题。
[Abstract]:On December 28th 2013, the standing Committee of the 12th National people's Congress adopted the decision on amending seven laws, including the Marine Environment Protection Law, in which the amendments to the Company Law came into effect on March 1st 2014. Among them, the most interesting thing is to change the paid-in system of the registered capital of a company into a thorough subscription system. And the abolition of the legal minimum registered capital. That is to say, when the company is set up in the future, it will no longer require the proportion of the capital to be paid in the first instalment and the time limit for the payment of the remaining outstanding capital. This reform has shaken the theoretical basis of the so-called "three principles of capital" that China has always adhered to. This has given us a question. Is it necessary to adhere to the principle of capital maintenance after the implementation of a thorough subscription capital system? Does it make sense to insist on capital maintenance by abolishing the minimum registered capital limit for all kinds of companies? From the angle of the theoretical origin, basic connotation and function of the capital maintenance principle, the paper analyzes the capital maintenance principle by referring to the foreign theory and practice experience, and probes into the theoretical approach of the capital maintenance principle under the company law reform. And how to implement the principle in practice in order to achieve a win-win situation of protecting creditors and activating the capital market. Since the amendment of the Company Law in 2005, the government has been loosening the control of the market, and the administrative supervision has gradually faded out. In order to promote the prosperity of the capital market, the corporate capital system of our country has gradually moved from the legal capital system of the traditional continental law system to the authorized capital system. In the trend of international economic integration, the civil law countries Germany and Japan also loosened their restrictions on corporate capital. The adoption of the German Law on the Reform of Limited liability companies in 2008 attracted particular attention. The Germans not only reduced the legal minimum registered capital, but also creatively set up a new kind of "business owner company" which does not need to be registered capital. Germany is the first teacher of our company law, "Unternehmergesellschaft". It is necessary for us to study the capital system reform in Germany. Japan's capital system has undergone three reforms. The regulation of capital has changed from loose to tight, and then loosened. Its reform experience is worth learning. And after hundreds of years of development, the authorized capital system represented by the United States has formed a perfect system of capital operation and creditor protection. We have studied the original authorized capital system. The principle of capital maintenance does not belong to the legal capital system. The authorized capital system also has the requirement of capital maintenance. After the reform of China's capital system, The minimum registered capital limit has been abolished, and a complete subscription system has been established, but the principle of capital maintenance should not be abandoned, but more attention should be paid to prevent the company from lacking capital. The prosperity of the authorized capital system in Anglo-American law system is rooted in the highly developed market environment of its contractual spirit and the full perfection of the relief mechanism afterwards. The amendment of company law is not the end point, the subsequent safeguard measures should be followed up in time, so that safety and efficiency can be taken into account. This paper makes a comparative study on the basic theory and judicial practice of the capital maintenance principle at home and abroad. This paper explores the connotation of the capital principle, analyzes the theoretical approach of the capital maintenance principle after the modification of the company law, combining with the present situation and judicial practice of our country. Then it tries to solve the possible problems of capital maintenance in the future judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】