仇源旺股东资格确认案评析

发布时间：2018-03-24 16:20

本文选题：隐名投资合同　切入点：发起人协议　出处：《湖南大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着股东资格确认纠纷的增多,公司股东资格的具体认定己成为日益关注的问题。虽然《公司法解释(三)》为股东资格确认提供了指导,隐名投资合同和实际出资人在法律上也被提出,但是在具体内容和认定上还没有详细规定,对公司股东资格认定也没有建立确定的标准。因此,对其具体认定进行探讨对理论和实务都具有重要的意义。关于股东出资,是股东必须履行的法定和约定义务,在实践中,股东之间约定出资利息,有可能是股东约定的利润分配方式,或者是股东的抽逃出资行为,因而对此约定的效力性认定是值得深入探讨的。《仇源旺股东资格确认案》是一个由《入股协议书》引发的关于股东资格确认纠纷、股东主张投资利息的案例,历时三年之久,涉及到公司法理论的多项内容。争议焦点围绕投资者之间签订的协议性质,公司股东资格取得与否,股东主张投资利息三方面而展开。为解决上述争议,故根据现有公司法理论和法律规定对上述三个问题进行分析:其一是公司《入股协议书》的性质。隐名投资合同是由实际出资人与名义股东订立的,约定由实际出资人以名义股东名义向公司出资,由实际出资人享有投资权益的合同。而发起人协议是发起人在公司设立过程中,订立的关于公司设立事项的协议,是发起人以设立公司为目标的共同行为。在实践中应从两者的内容和特征上去分析;其二是股东资格认定。在实践中,实际出资人与原始股东股东资格应该如何认定?实际出资人应该从主观隐名投资合意、实际出资、有无被登记以及投资权益归属四个方面认定。原始股东资格应从内外部法律关系区别对待,公司内部认定以实质要件为主,外部纠纷以形式要件为主;其三是股东之间约定投资利息的有效性。我国公司法尊重股东意思自治,但是约定的内容若违反我国法律规定,应是无效的。希望通过以上探讨为我国以后相关立法活动和司法实践中相似案例的解决提供参考。
[Abstract]:With the increase of disputes over the confirmation of shareholders' qualifications, more and more attention has been paid to the specific identification of shareholders' qualifications. Although the Company Law explanation (3) provides guidance for the confirmation of shareholders' qualifications, Anonymous investment contracts and actual investors have also been proposed in the law, but in the specific content and identification has not been specified in detail, the qualification of shareholders of the company has not established a defined standard. It is of great significance both in theory and in practice to discuss its specific determination. As for shareholders' contribution, it is the legal and contractual obligation that shareholders must perform. In practice, the shareholders agree on the interest of capital contribution. It may be the way of distribution of profits agreed upon by the shareholders, or the behavior of the shareholders in withdrawing their capital contribution, Therefore, the validity determination of this agreement is worthy of further discussion. The "Qiu Yuanwang shareholder qualification confirmation case" is a case of shareholders' qualification confirmation dispute caused by the "Agreement on the acquisition of shares," in which shareholders advocate for investment interest, which lasted for three years. The controversy focuses on the nature of the agreement signed between investors, whether the shareholder qualification of the company is obtained or not, and the shareholder's claim on investment interest. Therefore, according to the existing company law theory and legal provisions, the above three problems are analyzed: first, the nature of the company's "agreement on share acquisition". The anonymous investment contract is concluded by the actual investor and the nominal shareholders. A contract whereby the actual investor shall contribute capital to the company in the name of the nominal shareholder, and the actual investor shall enjoy the investment rights and interests. The promoters' agreement is the agreement on the matters concerning the establishment of the company concluded by the promoter in the course of the establishment of the company, It is the common behavior of the promoters aiming at the establishment of the company. In practice, it should be analyzed from the content and characteristics of both, and the second is the qualification of shareholders. In practice, how should the actual investors and the original shareholders be recognized? The actual investor should be determined from four aspects: subjective anonymous investment agreement, actual capital contribution, whether there is registration and ownership of investment rights and interests. The original shareholder qualification should be treated differently from the internal and external legal relations. External disputes are mainly formal elements; third, the validity of agreed interest on investment among shareholders. Our company law respects shareholder autonomy, but if the content of the agreement violates the laws and regulations of our country, It is hoped that the above discussion can be used as a reference for solving similar cases in relevant legislative activities and judicial practice in China.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】