公司人格反向否认制度研究

发布时间：2018-09-18 20:07

【摘要】：古罗马伟大法学家乌尔比安曾说过：“法律是公正与善良的艺术。”作为矫正公司人格制度异化的事后补救措施,我国2005年公司法的修改将发端于英美法系的公司人格否认制度大胆引进并适用,成为全世界范围内首次以成文法形式确立该制度的国家。但是在实践中,学界和实务界却多将目光集中在由公司债权人作为原告针对股东滥用公司独立人格和股东有限责任来逃避公司债务的行为进行起诉,最后揭开公司面纱,由股东替公司承担责任的传统公司人格否认的情形,对实践中出现的由股东债权人针对股东滥用公司独立人格转移资产,逃避债务进行起诉,并最终由公司对股东个人债务承担责任的公司人格反向否认制度研究甚少,本文所要探讨的正是如何规范公司人格反向否认制度的司法适用。本文除前言和结语外共分为四部分：第一部分是对公司人格否认制度的基础理论进行了系统梳理。基础理论是制度研究的起点,是公司人格反向否认制度的逻辑基础。文章首先对两大法系公司人格否认制度的理论基础进行了详尽论述,从而得出我国适用该制度的法理基础,进而在现有公司法律制度框架内对本文探讨的公司人格反向否认制度的法律依据进行论述。第二部分是对公司人格反向否认构成要件的全面分析,文章从主体要件、行为要件、结果要件三方面全方位分析了反向否认的司法适用,同时对各个要件具体适用中应注意的问题进行了详尽论述,最终得出只有全部满足以上三个要件才能反向否认公司人格,要求公司为股东的个人债务负责。第三部分是对公司人格反向否认适用范围的论述。与传统公司人格否认相似,在反向否认的适用范围上,本文主张只要存在股东滥用公司独立人格和股东有限责任逃避自身债务的情形,则不论公司形态均可适用,本文同时对实践中易发生反向否认的一人公司、母子公司、关联公司进行了重点分析。第四部分是对公司人格反向否认责任承担的论述。在该部分,文章主要从责任承担的范围和责任承担的方式两方面进行了探讨。在责任承担范围上,本文主张公司在其受益范围内对股东个人债务负责；而在责任承担方式上,本文主张公司仅应承担补充连带责任,即债权人只有在股东无力偿债的范围内才能向公司主张。
[Abstract]:The great Roman jurist Uribian once said, "Law is the art of justice and goodness." As a remedial measure to correct the alienation of corporate personality system, the amendment of our company law in 2005 will be introduced and applied boldly in the corporate personality denial system of common law system. It became the first country in the world to establish the system by statute law. However, in practice, scholars and practitioners often focus on the prosecution of corporate creditors as plaintiffs against shareholders who abuse their independent personality and shareholders' limited liability to evade corporate debt, and finally unveil the corporate veil. In the case of disavowal of the traditional corporate personality that the shareholders bear the responsibility for the company, the shareholder creditors should sue the shareholders for abusing the independent personality of the company to transfer the assets and evade the debts in practice. Finally, there is little research on the reverse denial of corporate personality, which is the responsibility of the company to the individual debt of the shareholders. This paper discusses exactly how to regulate the judicial application of the reverse denial of corporate personality. Besides the preface and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts: the first part is a systematic analysis of the basic theory of corporate personality denial system. Basic theory is the starting point of institutional research and the logical basis of reverse denial of corporate personality. Firstly, this paper discusses in detail the theoretical basis of the corporate personality denial system in the two major legal systems, and then obtains the legal basis for the application of the system in our country. Then it discusses the legal basis of the reverse denial of corporate personality in the framework of the existing corporate legal system. The second part is a comprehensive analysis of the corporate personality reverse denial elements, the article from the main elements, behavior requirements, the results of the elements of three all-round analysis of the judicial application of reverse denial. At the same time, the problems that should be paid attention to in the specific application of each element are discussed in detail. Finally, it is concluded that only when the above three elements are satisfied, can the company reverse deny the corporate personality and require the company to be responsible for the individual debts of the shareholders. The third part discusses the scope of reverse denial of corporate personality. Similar to the traditional corporate personality denial, this paper argues that as long as shareholders abuse their independent personality and shareholders' limited liability to evade their own debts, the application scope of reverse denial is applicable regardless of corporate form. At the same time, this paper focuses on the one-person company, parent-subsidiary company and affiliated company which are prone to reverse denial in practice. The fourth part is to the company personality reverse denial responsibility to bear the discussion. In this part, the article mainly discusses the scope of responsibility and the way of responsibility. In terms of the scope of liability, this paper argues that the company should be responsible for the individual debts of shareholders within its scope of benefit, while in the way of liability, the company should only bear supplementary joint and several liability. That is, creditors can only within the scope of shareholder insolvency can claim to the company.
【学位授予单位】：东南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】