论代持股关系中股权的归属与处分

发布时间：2018-01-13 11:44

本文关键词：论代持股关系中股权的归属与处分　出处：《浙江大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：对代持股关系中股权的归属与处分的讨论,最为核心的研究问题就是股权归属问题,所有有关代持股问题均离不开对股权归属的讨论。而股权归属问题恰恰又是代持股问题中最具争议的问题,现学界对此主要存在实质说和形式说两种主流观点。同时,对于名义股东擅自处分代持股行为的认定,《公司法解释(三)》第25条创新式地引入了《物权法》中的善意取得制度。此不仅使得其自身条文之间的逻辑显得突兀,而且又进一步加剧了学界对股权归属的争论。股权归属的讨论直接涉及到对代持股关系的性质的认定。对此,学界中存在普通债之关系、合伙关系、隐名代理关系、信托关系等不同观点,各观点的出发点均有所不同,且皆有可取之处,但亦存在着各自的问题。而代持股关系的性质问题与股权的归属问题之所以存在如此大的争议,更深层次的原因是我国股权变动模式存在公示性不足的缺陷。因此,对股权归属的讨论,不仅只是对实际出资人与名义股东之间的利益平衡,还需考虑到对我国的股权变动模式,乃至我国民商法体系的影响,尤其是我国物债二分的体系。对于名义股东擅自处分代持股行为的认定,则应从负担行为和处分行为两方面进行讨论。股权归属的问题不影响债权合同的效力。而《合同法》第52条有关"恶意串通"规定本亦无适用的空间,但由于《公司法解释(三)》第25条的存在,名义股东擅自处分代持股行为将有可能被认定为"恶意串通"的行为,从而将会影响到债权合同的效力。而对于处分行为效力的认定,处分行为性质为有权处分还是无权处分是决定处分行为效力的关键。《公司法解释(三)》第25条对善意取得制度的引入说明最高院的态度倾向于认定处分行为为无权处分。然而,善意取得制度的引入又引发了对股权善意取得制度的讨论。基于股权的变动模式以及《公司法》第32条第三款的规定,对于股权而言本应无适用善意取得的余地。《公司法解释(三)》第25条的规定体现了最高院对重新平衡实际出资人、名义股东与第三人之间利益的努力,但从民法体系的角度来看,其模糊了物债之间的区分,有违我国物债二分的体系。
[Abstract]:In the discussion of ownership and disposition of equity in proxy shareholding relationship, the most important research problem is equity ownership. All the issues related to proxy ownership are inseparable from the discussion of ownership, and equity ownership is precisely the most controversial issue in the issue of proxy ownership. There are two main views in the academic circle on this: substance theory and form theory. At the same time, the identification of the act of unauthorized disposition of the nominal shareholders on behalf of the holding of shares. Article 25 innovatively introduces the bona fide acquisition system in the Real Law, which not only makes the logic between its own articles seem abrupt. Moreover, it further intensifies the debate on equity ownership in academic circles. The discussion of ownership directly relates to the recognition of the nature of the relationship of proxy stock ownership. For this, there is a relationship between ordinary debt and partnership in academic circles. Anonymous agency relationship, trust relationship and other different views, the starting point of each point is different, and all have their merits. However, there are also their own problems. And the nature of the relationship between proxy ownership and ownership of equity is so controversial. The deeper reason is that there is insufficient publicity in the mode of stock right change in China. Therefore, the discussion of ownership is not only a balance of interests between actual investors and nominal shareholders. It is also necessary to consider the influence on the mode of stock right change in our country, and even the civil and commercial law system of our country, especially the system of dichotomy of property debt in our country. It should be discussed from the two aspects of burden behavior and disposition behavior. The ownership of shares does not affect the validity of creditor's rights contract. Article 52 of contract Law has no space to apply the provision of "malicious collusion". However, due to the existence of Article 25 of the interpretation of Company Law (3), the act of unauthorized disposition of proxy shareholders by nominal shareholders may be regarded as "malicious collusion". Therefore, it will affect the validity of the contract of creditor's rights. The nature of the disposition is the right to dispose or the unauthorized disposition is the key to determine the validity of the disposition. < interpretation of the Company Law (3). The introduction of the bona fide acquisition system in Article 25 indicates that the Supreme Court's attitude tends to consider the disposition to be unauthorized. The introduction of bona fide acquisition system leads to the discussion of bona fide equity acquisition system, based on the change mode of equity and the third paragraph of Article 32 of Company Law. There should be no room for bona fide acquisition of equity. Article 25 of the Company Law explanation (3) reflects the Supreme Court's efforts to rebalance the interests of actual investors, nominal shareholders and third parties. But from the point of view of civil law system, it blurs the distinction between property debts, which is contrary to the system of duality of property debts in our country.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】