论非基于公司决议的盈余分配请求权的司法保护

发布时间：2018-07-30 06:22

【摘要】：股东盈余分配请求权是股东重要的权利之一,从公司获得利益是股东投资设立公司最终的目的。2016年4月12日最高人民法院公布了关于适用《中华人民共和国公司法》若干问题的规定(四)的征求意见稿,其中第二十条规定股东请求分配利润的,应当提交载明具体分配方案的股东会或者股东大会的决议,否则法院应当驳回其诉讼请求。问题是当股东会或者股东大会作出不分配利润的决议或者没有作出有关分配利润的决议时,对盈余分配请求权受到损害的股东如何保护却没有规定。股东盈余分配请求权,是指股东在公司有利润可分配时,基于其公司股东的资格和地位而享有的请求公司向自己分配利润的权利。我国的理论界的通说认为其有两方面的内容,即抽象层面和具体层面。抽象层面的盈余分配请求权是股东基于其股东资格和地位而享有的权利,只要股东拥有该公司的股东资格和地位就可以请求该公司向其分配红利。具体层面的盈余分配请求权,是指股东是否有权请求公司向其分配利润取决于其是否有股东会或者股东大会作出的盈余分配分配决议。法院往往对抽象的盈余分配请求也就是股东(大)会分配决议缺失时持消极态度。其理由是要尊重公司自治,抽象盈余分配请求权性质特殊,而且受损股东可以寻求其它的替代性救济方式。但是法院在尊重公司自治时也要遵守法律的公平正义原则,抽象盈余分配纠纷是有可诉性的,对受损股东权益保护的最好办法不是寻求替代措施,而是构建强制盈余分配制度。强制盈余分配制度是股东依法要求公司向其分配利润时,公司以过分提取任意公积金为理由拒绝或者不给任何理由直接拒绝,此时,权益受到损害的股东请求法院强制公司向其分配利润的救济方式。强制盈余分配制度保护的公司类型应包括有限责任公司和非上市股份有限公司。条件是公司有可供分配的利润,公司不分配利润无正当理由,且受损股东已穷尽内部救济。提起盈余分配诉讼的原告是受损股东,被告是董事、控股股东、公司,按照谁主张谁举证原则,由原告承担举证责任,如果原告滥用权利,对公司造成的损失,应承担赔偿责任。至于具体应判决的盈余分配额,法院可以在专业机构的协助下,结合具体案件,在最高盈余分配额和最低盈余分配额之间做出具体数额的判决。
[Abstract]:The claim of the shareholder's earnings distribution is one of the important rights of the shareholders. The benefit from the company is the ultimate goal of the shareholders' investment and establishment of the company. In April 12th.2016, the Supreme People's court announced a draft on the application of the provisions of the "People's Republic of China company law" (four), of which twentieth stipulate that the shareholders are requesting the distribution of profits. If it is run, the resolution of the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' meeting shall be submitted, otherwise the court shall dismiss its claim. The question is how to protect the shareholders who have been damaged when the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' meeting makes a resolution without the distribution of profits or when it fails to make a decision on the distribution of profits. But there is no regulation. The claim of the shareholder's earnings distribution refers to the right of the shareholders to allocate profits to the company based on the qualifications and status of their shareholders when the company has a profit distribution. In our country, the theoretical circle of our country thinks that there are two aspects of its content, the abstract level and the specific level. The abstract level of earnings distribution. The right of request is the right of a shareholder based on the qualification and status of its shareholders. As long as the shareholders have the shareholders' qualification and status of the company, they can ask the company to assign a dividend to the company. The right to allocate the earnings at the specific level is whether the shareholders have the right to ask the company to allocate the profit to it depending on whether it has a shareholders' meeting or the shareholder is big. A decision on the allocation and distribution of earnings will be made. The court tends to hold a negative attitude towards the abstract earnings distribution request, namely, the loss of the shareholders' allocation of resolutions. The reason is to respect the autonomy of the company, the nature of the claim of the abstract earnings distribution is special, and the damaged shareholders can seek its alternative remedy. The best way to protect the rights and interests of the damaged shareholders is not to seek alternative measures, but to construct a compulsory surplus distribution system. The system of compulsory surplus distribution is an excessive extraction of arbitrarily by the company when shareholders are required to distribute profits to them according to law. In order to refuse or give no reason to refuse directly, the stockholders who have been injured ask the court to force the company to force the company to distribute the profit to the company. The type of company protected by the compulsory surplus distribution system should include the limited liability company and the unlisted Limited by Share Ltd. The company does not allocate profits without justification, and the damaged shareholders have exhausted the internal relief. The plaintiff of the surplus distribution litigation is the damaged shareholder, the defendant is the director, the controlling shareholder, the company, and the plaintiff is responsible for the burden of proof according to who claims the proof principle. If the plaintiff abuses the right and the loss to the company, it should be liable for compensation. The court may, with the assistance of a professional institution, make a specific amount of judgment between the highest and the minimum surplus quotas, with the assistance of a professional institution, with the assistance of a professional institution.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】