本文選題：股東困境 + 司法救濟　； 參考：《中國政法大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：2005年修訂的《中華人民共和國公司法》(以下簡稱《公司法》)第183條增加了關于公司司法解散的規(guī)定,2008年最高人民法院《關于適用公司法若干問題的規(guī)定(二)》(以下簡稱司法解釋(二))對該制度的適用作了具體規(guī)定,如適用條件、原被告的主體資格等。依照我國公司法的規(guī)定,公司僵局是司法解散的唯一事由,股東困境不適用該制度,司法實踐中受壓迫股東請求解散公司的,法院都沒有支持。這不利于股東從公司中退出,不利于對受壓迫股東利益的保護,進而會影響社會資本的利用率,不利于資本市場的健康運行和發(fā)展。 論文的核心在于探討有限責任公司股東壓迫問題及其司法解散救濟機制,主張在股東壓迫的情形下,法院可以通過強制股權收購、司法解散、減少注冊資本等方式保障公司退出機制的暢通,從而實現對中小股東利益的保護。論文闡述和分析了股東壓迫的情形,國外及臺灣地區(qū)有關股東壓迫的公司立法及司法實踐,論證了股東壓迫問題產生的原因、股東壓迫必須訴諸司法途徑解決的必要性,最后得出論文的核心觀點:應當賦予受壓迫股東訴請法院解散公司的權利,股東壓迫應當是法院判決解散公司的事由之一。 論文包括四章。第一章論述股東壓迫問題的提出,股東壓迫的界定及具體的表現形式;第二章從三個方面論證了股東壓迫產生的原因:有限責任公司的特點、章程無法平衡股東間的權利義務及有限責任公司不完善的治理結構;第三章列舉了德、美、加、俄公司立法中有關股東壓迫問題及我國有關司法解散的規(guī)定,分析了我國司法實踐中三個涉及股東壓迫情形的案例,得出了在我國股東壓迫不是司法解散事由的結論,在此基礎上論證了股東壓迫必須訴諸司法途徑解決的必要性;第四章闡釋了如何通過司法途徑解決實務中出現的股東壓迫問題,包括法院可以通過司法解散及其他替代性救濟措施保護受壓迫股東的權利,法官在審理案件的過程中應當被賦予自由裁量權,無須動輒解散公司等內容。 受壓迫股東在投資設立有限責任公司時,懷有參與公司經營管理活動的期望,即他期望他能在公司中任職并領取工資、參與公司的經營管理、對公司經營決策有發(fā)言權、獲取公司的經營收益、分取紅利等,正是這種期望才促成了公司的設立,當這種期望在公司的存續(xù)過程中被挫敗時,股東應當獲得權利的救濟,否則將會挫傷股東的投資熱情。 在股東權保護上,絕大多數發(fā)達國家已建立較為完善的法律體系,并輔之以司法救濟,中小股東的利益亦能兼顧。實踐證明,要構建公平合理的投資秩序和健康和諧的投資環(huán)境,必須保護受壓迫股東的權利,只有這樣才能活躍資本市場,實現資本的合理優(yōu)化配置,最終推動社會經濟的發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:Article 183 of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "Company Law"), as amended in 2005, added provisions on judicial dissolution of companies. The application of the system is specified in the judicial interpretation (II). Such as the applicable conditions, the principal qualifications of the original defendant, etc. According to the provisions of our company law, corporate deadlock is the only reason for judicial dissolution, shareholders' dilemma does not apply to the system, and in judicial practice, the court does not support the oppressed shareholders who request to dissolve the company. This is not conducive to the withdrawal of shareholders from the company, to the protection of the interests of the oppressed shareholders, to the utilization of social capital and to the healthy operation and development of the capital market. The core of the paper is to discuss the problem of shareholder oppression and its judicial dissolution relief mechanism of limited liability company. It is argued that under the circumstances of shareholder oppression, the court can be dissolved by compulsory equity acquisition and judicial dissolution. Reduce the registered capital and other ways to ensure the smooth exit mechanism, so as to achieve the protection of the interests of minority shareholders. This paper expounds and analyzes the situation of shareholder oppression, the corporate legislation and judicial practice of shareholder oppression in foreign countries and Taiwan, and demonstrates the reasons for the problem of shareholder oppression, and the necessity that shareholder oppression must be resolved through judicial means. Finally, the core point of the paper is that the oppressed shareholders should be given the right to appeal to the court to dissolve the company, and the shareholder oppression should be one of the reasons for the court ruling to dissolve the company. The thesis consists of four chapters. The first chapter discusses the problem of shareholder oppression, the definition of shareholder oppression and its concrete form of expression, the second chapter demonstrates the causes of shareholder oppression from three aspects: the characteristics of limited liability company, The articles of association cannot balance the rights and obligations between shareholders and the imperfect governance structure of limited liability companies. Chapter three lists the problems of shareholder oppression in the legislation of German, American, Canadian and Russian companies and the provisions concerning judicial dissolution in our country. This paper analyzes three cases of shareholder oppression in China's judicial practice, draws the conclusion that shareholder oppression is not the cause of judicial dissolution in our country, and on this basis demonstrates the necessity that shareholder oppression must be resolved through judicial means; The fourth chapter explains how to solve the problem of shareholder oppression in practice through judicial means, including that the court can protect the rights of oppressed shareholders through judicial dissolution and other alternative relief measures. Judges should be given discretion in hearing cases without dissolving the company. When an oppressed shareholder invests in the establishment of a limited liability company, he has the expectation of participating in the operation and management of the company, that is, he expects him to be able to work in the company and receive his wages, to participate in the operation and management of the company, and to have a say in the company's business decisions. It is this expectation that leads to the establishment of the company. When this expectation is defeated in the course of the company's existence, the shareholders should obtain the relief of the right, otherwise it will dampen the shareholders' investment enthusiasm. In the protection of shareholders' rights, most developed countries have established a relatively perfect legal system, supplemented by judicial relief, the interests of minority shareholders can also be taken into account. Practice has proved that in order to build a fair and reasonable investment order and a healthy and harmonious investment environment, we must protect the rights of the oppressed shareholders. Only in this way can we activate the capital market and realize the rational and optimal allocation of capital. Finally promote the development of social economy.
【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 陳玉芳;陳雪仙;;公司司法解散制度研究[J];長春理工大學學報(社會科學版);2009年06期

2 趙學剛;;求解有限責任公司股東預期利益實現的制度困境[J];重慶大學學報(社會科學版);2009年02期

3 彭小娜;袁輝根;;公司司法解散之認定標準分析[J];法律適用;2010年Z1期

4 黨凱;李斌;;司法介入解散公司的替代措施探討[J];法制與社會;2008年29期

5 龔媛媛;;公司司法解散制度的價值分析[J];法制與社會;2010年20期

6 張妍;;公司解散的司法解釋要件解讀[J];國際市場;2010年10期

7 李霞;;論公司司法解散制度的立法價值[J];科技信息;2010年01期

8 周德榮;;公司司法解散訴訟有關問題的實證分析[J];南京審計學院學報;2010年02期

9 曹錦秋;湯閎淼;;中日公司司法解散制度比較研究[J];日本研究;2008年01期

10 Thomas J.Bamonte;楊驍;;伊利諾斯州法院應當關心公司僵局嗎?[J];商事法論集;2006年02期

相關碩士學位論文 前3條

1 吳晶晶;我國公司判決解散制度分析[D];中國政法大學;2007年

2 陳軍杰;論有限責任公司股東困境的救濟[D];暨南大學;2008年

3 靳培丹;公司司法解散理論與實踐問題研究[D];北京化工大學;2010年

，

本文編號：1794210