本文選題：公司擔(dān)保 + 實(shí)體規(guī)制　； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康發(fā)展之中,公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的現(xiàn)象十分普遍。但公司法發(fā)展的歷程并沒有始終如一的對(duì)待公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保行為,具體而言,在公司法之初一般均嚴(yán)格限制公司對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保,無論是英美法系的越權(quán)原則,還是大陸法系的“嚴(yán)格禁止,例外許可”模式。立法的設(shè)計(jì)為何要嚴(yán)格規(guī)制公司的對(duì)外擔(dān)保行為呢,這種普遍現(xiàn)象的背后有著怎樣的邏輯,以至于體現(xiàn)國(guó)家干預(yù)的立法要對(duì)此予以限制,這是我們需要首先明確的問題,當(dāng)然這并不僅僅是我們要尋找的答案。 自烏爾比安以來,公法和私法有著相對(duì)明確的領(lǐng)域,盡管并不十分清晰。公法和私法明確各自領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)重要的意義即在于確立私權(quán)的存在空間,避免公法的過分干預(yù)。而根據(jù)私法自治的原則,公司作為法人,是獨(dú)立的民商事主體,對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保理應(yīng)是其應(yīng)有之義。但這只是在私法的眼光去觀察,本質(zhì)上私法需要公法的守護(hù),守護(hù)的手段當(dāng)然并不排除公權(quán)力的干預(yù),但干預(yù)必須存在干預(yù)的前提,干預(yù)的目的也是為了維護(hù)私法更好的自治。 我們?cè)谶@里,不僅僅在于觀察公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的邏輯,而是在公司擔(dān)保自治的角度引申出國(guó)家規(guī)制的合理性及不足,從而在一定程度上去尋找法律干預(yù)公司擔(dān)保的界限。通過本文的考察,公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的行為沒有必要從實(shí)體上予以限制,.立法完全可以通過對(duì)公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的程序規(guī)制來實(shí)現(xiàn)擔(dān)保的價(jià)值。而程序的規(guī)制是復(fù)雜的,這需要我們細(xì)致的工作,從而在程序上最大可能保證公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的合理性。
[Abstract]:In the healthy development of market economy, the phenomenon of external guarantee is very common. However, the course of the development of company law has not been consistent with the behavior of company guarantee. Specifically, at the beginning of the company law, it is generally strictly restricted that the company provides guarantee, regardless of the principle of ultra vires in Anglo-American law system. It is also the mode of strict prohibition and exceptional permission in civil law system. Why should legislation be designed to strictly regulate the acts of foreign guarantee of companies? what kind of logic exists behind this universal phenomenon, so that legislation that reflects state intervention should restrict this? this is a question that we need to clarify first. Of course, this is not just the answer we are looking for. Since Ulbien, public and private law have relatively clear, albeit not very clear, areas. One of the important meanings of public law and private law is to establish the existence space of private right and avoid the excessive interference of public law. According to the principle of autonomy of private law, the company, as a legal person, is an independent subject of civil and commercial affairs. But this is only observed from the perspective of private law. In essence, private law needs the protection of public law, and the means of guardianship certainly do not exclude the intervention of public power, but intervention must have the premise of intervention, and the purpose of intervention is also to safeguard the better autonomy of private law. We are here not only to observe the logic of the company's external guarantee, but also to extend the rationality and insufficiency of the state regulation from the perspective of the autonomy of the company's guarantee, thus to find the limits of the legal intervention in the company's guarantee to a certain extent. Through the investigation of this paper, there is no need to restrict the behavior of external guarantee from the entity. The legislation can realize the value of the guarantee through the procedural regulation of the company's external guarantee. The regulation of the procedure is complex, which requires our detailed work, so as to guarantee the rationality of the company's external guarantee as far as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D912.29

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王文思;公司越權(quán)對(duì)外擔(dān)保的合同效力研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1840442