本文關(guān)鍵詞：有限責(zé)任公司適用內(nèi)部承包合同法律問題研究　出處：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 有限責(zé)任公司 承包制度 內(nèi)部承包合同 公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)

【摘要】：承包制度在我國具有濃厚的時(shí)代氣息。肇始于1978年在農(nóng)村開展的土地承包經(jīng)營制度,一度解放了農(nóng)村的生產(chǎn)力,推動(dòng)了農(nóng)村的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展。后來,承包制度被廣泛地運(yùn)用到國有企業(yè)、鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)企業(yè)、中外合資企業(yè)等,成為計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)條件下全民所有制企業(yè)向市場經(jīng)濟(jì)條件下現(xiàn)代公司轉(zhuǎn)變的重要過渡方式。但隨著西方現(xiàn)代企業(yè)制度在我國的確立,承包制度因其治理專權(quán)的思想與公司制度分權(quán)治理的理念相悖而逐漸淡出歷史的舞臺(tái)。但作為對(duì)現(xiàn)代公司制度的變通,商人們?cè)谟邢挢?zé)任公司內(nèi)部還大量地使用承包合同。實(shí)踐中有限責(zé)任公司中因承包而產(chǎn)生糾紛訴至法院也屢見不鮮。 內(nèi)部承包合同之所以在有限責(zé)任公司中繼續(xù)存在,有其獨(dú)特的價(jià)值。公司天生的使命就是在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最小化的前提下謀求利潤最大化,但由于我國公司法僅規(guī)定了有限責(zé)任公司和股份有限公司兩種形式,無法適應(yīng)瞬啟、萬變的商業(yè)社會(huì),因此,商人們才會(huì)想盡辦法在公司法的框架內(nèi),在現(xiàn)有商事組織運(yùn)行過程中謀求變化。內(nèi)部承包合同體現(xiàn)了《公司法》公司自治的理念,公司可以根據(jù)自身狀況自主決定其經(jīng)營模式,并自愿承擔(dān)因此可能造成的后果。內(nèi)部承包合同是公司根據(jù)需要作出的自我調(diào)整,解決了因?yàn)楣舅袡?quán)與經(jīng)營權(quán)相分離而引起的代理成本問題,緩解了股東干預(yù)傾向和經(jīng)營者獨(dú)立傾向引發(fā)的矛盾問題,彌補(bǔ)了有限責(zé)任公司存在的缺陷,這正是有限責(zé)任公司廣泛采用內(nèi)部承包合同的根本原因。 近年來,對(duì)公司內(nèi)部承包制度研究雖多,但大都浮光掠影,并沒有系統(tǒng)、深入地進(jìn)行論證,仍然存在諸多問題,學(xué)者對(duì)于該制度在實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)行更是少有涉及。內(nèi)部承包制度是如何在有限責(zé)任公司中運(yùn)行的,兩者在運(yùn)行過程中又會(huì)存在哪些矛盾和沖突,這些沖突和矛盾能否得到合理的解釋和解決。這是本文著重討論的問題。基于此,本文分為導(dǎo)論、正文、文章總結(jié),其中正文由四部分組成： 第一部分介紹了承包制度在我國的歷史發(fā)展,并著重介紹了承包合同制度在企業(yè)間的興衰,以及在現(xiàn)代公司組織形式中內(nèi)部承包合同對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司所具有的積極意義,為下面的論證的展開做了鋪墊; 第二部分是關(guān)于有限責(zé)任公司中內(nèi)部承包合同的有效性的論證。筆者首先對(duì)內(nèi)部承包合同進(jìn)行區(qū)分,并提出本文研究的重點(diǎn)是內(nèi)部經(jīng)營性承包合同。之后從理論和實(shí)踐兩方面論證了內(nèi)部承包合同的有效性。在理論上,著重分析了理論界現(xiàn)有研究關(guān)于內(nèi)部承包合同的爭議,并通過對(duì)公司法的性質(zhì)及公司法中有關(guān)有限責(zé)任公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)規(guī)定的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行分析,論證內(nèi)部承包合同的有效性。在實(shí)踐上,筆者對(duì)司法實(shí)踐有關(guān)內(nèi)部承包糾紛判決的分析,證實(shí)在司法實(shí)務(wù)中,法院已經(jīng)對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司適用的內(nèi)部承包合同的效力給與了肯定的態(tài)度。最后從《公司法》的角度進(jìn)一步分析了內(nèi)部承包合同簽訂的所應(yīng)具備的正當(dāng)程序,這種正當(dāng)程序主要是考慮到內(nèi)部承包合同發(fā)生在有限責(zé)任公司內(nèi)部,應(yīng)當(dāng)符合《公司法》對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司作出的規(guī)定； 第三部分主要分析了內(nèi)部承包合同在適用過程中對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司內(nèi)部治理結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生的影響,筆者從《公司法》規(guī)定的三會(huì)具體職權(quán)出發(fā),分析內(nèi)部承包制度對(duì)公司代理制度的改變,對(duì)公司股東會(huì)、董事會(huì)、監(jiān)事會(huì)職能的影響。與學(xué)界現(xiàn)有觀點(diǎn)不同的是,筆者認(rèn)為公司的內(nèi)部治理結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生的影響要分不同的情況看待：在規(guī)模較小、股東人數(shù)較少的有限責(zé)任公司中,一般選擇的模式是將全部經(jīng)營權(quán)發(fā)包,即承包方全權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)公司經(jīng)營,此時(shí),承包人在公司經(jīng)營問題上,完全替代了股東會(huì)、董事會(huì)的相關(guān)權(quán)力；但在規(guī)模較大、股東人數(shù)多的公司內(nèi),一般僅將部分經(jīng)營權(quán)發(fā)包給承包人,承包人不會(huì)取得該公司經(jīng)營權(quán)的全部,也并不能動(dòng)搖股東會(huì)的決策權(quán),董事會(huì)的職能也并沒有受到太多影響。但不管在哪種情況下,監(jiān)事會(huì)(監(jiān)事)的專屬監(jiān)督權(quán)力在無意間由公司內(nèi)部承包合同予以取代而變得虛無。但這種變化是針對(duì)內(nèi)部承包合同所作出的適當(dāng)調(diào)整,是應(yīng)當(dāng)被認(rèn)可的。內(nèi)部承包合同改變了《公司法》對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司的治理構(gòu)架,但這種變化并非破壞性的,而是針對(duì)內(nèi)部承包合同作出的適當(dāng)調(diào)整。 第四部著重分析了有限責(zé)任公司在適用內(nèi)部承包制度后,對(duì)外債務(wù)的承擔(dān)方式發(fā)生的變化。在該章中主要分兩個(gè)部分進(jìn)行論述：一般內(nèi)部人員作為承包人與股東作為承包人。在分析前一種情況時(shí),筆者從民法的角度進(jìn)一步分析責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式變化的法理依據(jù),有限責(zé)任公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任的前提是承包方對(duì)外簽訂合同的行為對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司而言構(gòu)成代表行為,或者構(gòu)成無權(quán)代理的表見代理。因此,在實(shí)踐中,應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)具體的情況選擇是應(yīng)當(dāng)由公司還是由承包方作為第一順序人承擔(dān)對(duì)外責(zé)任。如果公司是作為第一順序人承擔(dān)責(zé)任,則可以根據(jù)內(nèi)部承包合同的約定向承包方追償。在分析股東作為承包方時(shí),主要圍繞股東的是否應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任進(jìn)行,股東作為承包人時(shí)具有特殊性,其因承包而需承擔(dān)的對(duì)外責(zé)任與作為股東承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任出現(xiàn)沖突時(shí),應(yīng)首先考慮讓承包股東承擔(dān)合同責(zé)任而非股東有限責(zé)任。 第五部分從明確內(nèi)部承包合同訂立的條件、對(duì)承包方經(jīng)營過程的監(jiān)督及對(duì)股東權(quán)益的保障三方面提出完善內(nèi)部承包合同的建議,從而使這一制度能夠與有限責(zé)任公司進(jìn)一步融合,適應(yīng)市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。 本文的主要在以下三個(gè)方面嘗試創(chuàng)新： 1、立足《公司法》相關(guān)規(guī)定,從規(guī)范法學(xué)的角度分析有限責(zé)任公司內(nèi)部承包合同簽訂的需要的主體資格要件、在公司法框架下的程序要求及該制度對(duì)公司內(nèi)部治理結(jié)構(gòu)的影響; 2、在本文撰寫過程中收集整理了大量的法院判決,并將其作為支撐材料,并通過對(duì)案例材料的分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)該問題在實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)行狀況,為本文的研究提供了依據(jù)； 3、從民法理論出發(fā)分析適用內(nèi)部承包合同后公司對(duì)外責(zé)任的承擔(dān)方式的改變,提出并非完全按照傳統(tǒng)模式下由有限責(zé)任公司作為第一責(zé)任人對(duì)外承擔(dān)責(zé)任。 本文不足之處： 第一,內(nèi)部承包合同與有限責(zé)任公司分屬不同的法律性質(zhì),兩者之間存在一定的沖突,雖然筆者意在將內(nèi)部承包合同融入有限責(zé)任公司中,卻不敢奢望能夠畢其功于一役,如何在現(xiàn)有法律框架下妥善地解決兩者之間可能的矛盾,仍然需要繼續(xù)深入地思考；第二,在本文撰寫過程中,雖然對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中案例進(jìn)行了分析,但并沒有有效地運(yùn)用案例進(jìn)行更加有說服力的論證,使得這一創(chuàng)新之處留下了遺憾。
[Abstract]:The system has a strong flavor of the times in our country. The land contracting system in rural development began in 1978, once the liberation of the rural productive forces, promote the economic development of rural areas. Later, the system has been widely applied to the state-owned enterprises, township enterprises, Sino foreign joint venture enterprise, has become an important way of planned economy in transition under public ownership enterprises to the modern company under the condition of market economy. But with the establishment of the western modern enterprise system in our country, because of its authoritarian governance contract system contrary thought and the concept of governance and decentralization of company system gradually fade out the stage of history. But as to the modern company system flexible, business people in limited liability the company also use a lot of contract. In the practice of the limited liability company for contract disputes to court also It is often seen..
The internal contract is to continue to exist in the limited liability company, has its unique value. The natural mission is to seek profit maximization in the premise of risk minimization, but because of China's company law only provides limited liability company and the Limited by Share Ltd in two forms, unable to adapt to the change of the instantaneous and commercial society, therefore business people will find ways, in the framework of the company law, to seek changes in the operation process of the existing commercial organization. Internal contract embodies the "Company Law > Company Autonomy, the company can decide its business model independently according to their own condition, and therefore may voluntarily assume the consequences. The internal contract is according to the needs of company of self adjustment, solved because of the separation of ownership and management, the agency cost problems caused, alleviate the shareholders and operators only intervene The contradiction caused by the standing tendency makes up the defects of the limited liability company, which is the fundamental reason why the limited liability company widely adopts the internal contract.
In recent years, although the research on corporate internal contracting system, but most of them are not system, skimming over the surface, in-depth demonstration, there are still many problems, few scholars involved in the operation of the system in practice. It is the internal contract system is how to run in the limited liability company, what are they the contradictions and conflicts in the process of operation, these conflicts and contradictions can be explained and solved. This is the issue that is discussed in this paper. Based on this, this paper is divided into the introduction, text, summary, the text consists of four components:
The first part is the introduction of the contract system in the history of the development of our country, and emphatically introduces the rise and fall of the contract system in the enterprise, and the positive significance of internal contract organization in the modern company in the form of a limited liability company, lays the groundwork for the following argument;
The second part is about the internal validity of contract of limited liability company in the argument. The author first to distinguish internal contract, and puts forward the focus of this paper is the internal management of the contract. Then from two aspects of theory and practice demonstrates the effectiveness of the internal contract. In theory, focuses on the analysis of the theory the existing research about the internal contract dispute, and the provisions of relevant properties of governance structure of limited liability company and the nature of company law on company law in the analysis of the validation internal contract. In practice, the author analysis of judicial practice on internal contract dispute judgment, confirmed in the judicial practice, the court has effect of application of the limited liability company internal contract to give a positive attitude. Finally, the internal contract further analysis from the perspective of "company law" The due process of signing the contract is mainly due to the fact that the internal contract takes place within the limited liability company, and it should comply with the provisions of the company law to the limited liability company.
The third part mainly analyzes the influence of the internal contract of the internal governance structure of limited liability company in the process of the application, the author from the provisions of the company law > < three specific functions of the change of the internal contract system of system of company, the shareholders' meeting, board of directors, the board of supervisors. The influence of different the existing academic view, the author believes that the impact of the company's internal governance structure should be divided into different situations: in view of small, small number of shareholders of the limited liability company, general selection mode is all the management right of contract, the contractor is responsible for the company, at this time, the contractor in the company management, completely replace the shareholders' meeting, the board of directors of the relevant authority; but in a larger scale, the number of shareholders in the company, only part of the franchise contract to the contractor, the contractor will not take The business of the company all right, and can not shake shareholder decision-making power, the functions of the board of directors has not been much affected. But in any case, the board of supervisors (supervisors) exclusive supervision power inadvertently by the company contract to replace and become nothing but this. Change is the appropriate adjustments made for the internal contract, should be recognized. The internal contracts changed "framework of governance of limited liability company in company law >, but this change is not destructive, but to adjust the internal contracts made.
The fourth part focuses on the analysis of the limited liability company in the application of the internal contract system, change the way to bear external debt. This chapter is divided into two parts: the general staff as the contractor and shareholders as contractor. In the former case analysis, the author further analyzes the responsibility from the perspective of civil law bear the legal basis of the premise, the limited liability company bear the responsibility of the contractor signed a contract constitutes a representative behavior of limited liability company, or unauthorized agency agency by estoppel. Therefore, in practice, we should choose according to specific is shall be made by the company or by the Contractor as the first order of people take responsibility. If the company is liable as a first order, you can recover to the contractor according to the internal contract contract. In the analysis of shareholders As a contractor, mainly around the shareholders should bear the limited liability of shareholders as the particularity of the contractor, the contractor should bear responsibility for the foreign and the limited liability of the shareholders conflict, should first consider the shareholders to bear contractual liability and the limited liability of shareholders.
The fifth part made clear from the internal conditions of the contract, put forward to perfect the internal contract proposal to the contractor supervision process operation and protection of shareholders' rights in three aspects, so as to make the system able to further integration with the limited liability company, to adapt to the development of the market economy.
This paper tries to innovate in the following three aspects:
1, based on the relevant provisions of the company law, from the perspective of normative jurisprudence, we analyze the main qualification requirements of the limited liability company's internal contract, the procedural requirements under the company law framework and the impact of the system on the company's internal governance structure.
2, during the process of writing, a large number of court decisions were collected, and used as supporting materials, and through the analysis of case materials, we found the operation status of the problem in practice, which provided a basis for our research.
3, starting from the theory of civil law, the paper analyzes the changes of the way of corporate external responsibility undertaken after the application of internal contract, and proposes that the limited liability company should not be held accountable as the first responsible person in the traditional mode.
The shortcomings of this paper are as follows:
First, the legal nature of the internal contract and limited liability companies belong to different, there is a conflict between the two, although the author intends to internal contract into limited liability company, but do not expect to accomplish the whole task at one stroke, how to properly resolve the possible contradiction between the two under the existing legal framework still needs further thinking; second, in the process of writing, although the cases in judicial practice are analyzed, but there is no effective use cases are more persuasive arguments, the innovation of the left a regret.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蔡立東;公司制度生長的歷史邏輯[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年06期

2 劉俊海;;新公司法框架下的公司承包經(jīng)營問題研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年02期

3 李燈紅;;公司承包合同的效力問題探討[J];太原師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

4 孟蘭凱;;公司承包行為法律效力的實(shí)例分析[J];福建法學(xué);2004年02期

5 潘星;時(shí)秋;;對(duì)公司承包經(jīng)營制度的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年02期

6 普麗芬;從公司法規(guī)則的分類界定公司章程的邊界[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

7 張如海;;公司承包經(jīng)營的法律效力與法之規(guī)制[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年12期

8 李克才;;股東將公司發(fā)包給股東的承包經(jīng)營合同效力[J];人民司法;2008年24期

9 劉群;顧玲;高偉;;內(nèi)部承包合同糾紛是否一律不受司法救濟(jì)[J];人民司法;2009年10期

10 王彥明;;股東積極主義:股東積極行為的公司法界限[J];行政與法;2009年08期

，

本文編號(hào)：1439516