股东优先购买权之性质考究

发布时间：2018-03-12 06:57

本文选题：股东优先购买权　切入点：性质　出处：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：本文在现有文献资料的基础上对股东优先购买权的性质做出分析,比较各类学说的利弊所在并得出股东优先购买权应当是一项优先购买的请求权。本文的正文内容一共分为三部分。第一部分是股权优先购买权的概述,论述了优先购买权的概念与性质,在优先购买权概念的基础上又论述了股东优先购买权的基础理论问题,包括股东优先购买权的内涵及分类,明确本文接下来所讨论的股东优先购买权的性质问题是在此概念限定的基础上做出的讨论,而非纯粹的契约型优先购买权或法定优先购买权的性质问题。明确股东优先购买权的定义之后便引出当前学界争论的焦点,即股东优先购买权性质之争。绝对形成权说、附条件形成权说、请求权说、期待权说、组合型权利说这五种学说对于股东优先购买权的法律性质持不同见解。本文的第二部分是对绝对形成权说与附条件形成权说的反驳。由于期待权说只解释了权利的实现状态问题,并未解释权利行使的效果,可以说期待权说没有涉及到问题争论的核心点,而组合型权利说只是各类学说的折衷体,因此在驳斥篇没有对这两类学说做出详述。反对绝对形成权说的理由有三点,分别是绝对形成权说无法解释反悔权的存在及行使效力,无法解释同等条件需要综合考量转让价格、付款方式及期限等因素来确定,也无法解释当公司章程将优先购买权相关法律规定选出后的制度安排。反对附条件形成权说的理由有两点,理由之一是按照大陆法系权利体系理论,形成权一般不得附条件,把优先购买权视为一项附条件的形成权缺乏法理基础的支持。理由之二是附条件形成权说所指代的所附条件的内容值得商榷。本文的第三部分论证了请求权说的成立。一方面从解释论的角度对《公司法》第71条第3款及第4款做出了文义解释及体系解释,论述股东优先购买权与请求权本质特征相同之处。另一方面从利益衡量的角度论述了请求权说也符合利益衡量的基准,既能够在一定程度上保护有限责任公司的人合性,也能够有效地防止股权对外转让被过度限制。本文的创新之处有两点:一是对绝对形成权说以及附条件形成权说做出了详实的驳斥。有关优先购买权制度的文章虽有反对形成权说,但对于形成权说的反对理由不够具体。二是结合解释论与利益衡量论对优先购买权的法律性质做出了更为全面的分析。综上所述,本文认为股东优先购买权是一项优先购买的请求权。
[Abstract]:Based on the existing literature, this paper makes an analysis of the nature of shareholders' preemptive right. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of various theories and draw the conclusion that the shareholders' preemption right should be a preemptive claim. The main text of this paper is divided into three parts. The first part is an overview of the preemptive right of stock. This paper discusses the concept and nature of preemption right, and on the basis of the concept of preemptive right, discusses the basic theoretical problems of the preemptive right of shareholders, including the connotation and classification of the preemptive right of shareholders. It is clear that the nature of the shareholder's preemptive right discussed in this paper is based on the definition of this concept. After defining the definition of shareholder's preemptive right, it leads to the current academic controversy, that is, the nature of shareholder's preemptive right. The theory of conditional formation right, claim right, expectation right, The five theories of combinatorial rights hold different opinions on the legal nature of shareholders' preemption right. The second part of this paper is to refute the theory of absolute formative right and conditional forming right. Implementation state problem of, Without explaining the effect of the exercise of rights, it can be said that the theory of expected right does not involve the core point of the dispute, while the theory of combined right is only a compromise of various theories. There are three reasons for opposing the absolute right of formation: the absolute right of formation cannot explain the existence and effect of the right of estoppel. It cannot be explained that the same conditions need to be determined by a combination of factors such as transfer price, payment method and duration. It is also impossible to explain the institutional arrangements after the articles of association of the company elect the relevant laws on the preemptive right. There are two reasons for opposing the right to form conditional rights. One of the reasons is that according to the theory of the civil law system of rights, the right of formation is generally not subject to conditions. The second reason is that the content of the appended conditions referred to by the theory of conditional forming right is debatable. The third part of this paper demonstrates the claim of the right of claim. On the one hand, from the angle of interpretation theory, the article 71 (3) and (4) of the Company Law are interpreted in terms of meaning and system. On the other hand, from the angle of interest measurement, the author discusses that the claim right theory also accords with the criterion of interest measurement, which can protect the human nature of limited liability company to a certain extent. The innovation of this paper is to refute the theory of absolute right of formation and the theory of conditional right of formation in detail. Although there is the right to oppose formation, However, the objection to the theory of right of formation is not specific enough. Secondly, the author makes a more comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of preemptive right in combination with the theory of interpretation and the theory of interest measurement. This paper holds that the shareholder's preemption right is a preemptive claim.
【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】