本文選題：清算義務(wù) + 清算義務(wù)人��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：清晰界定清算義務(wù)人的范圍,在公司清算的過程中有重要的意義。在公司清算的過程當(dāng)中,有眾多的利益相關(guān)者會(huì)牽涉其中,比如公司債權(quán)人,公司本身以及公司的股東,他們各自的利益在公司清算階段都處于一個(gè)不明確的狀態(tài),在這場(chǎng)利益博弈中,每個(gè)人的利益都有可能遭受侵害。為防止這些權(quán)利主體的利益受損,相關(guān)各方可以在事前約定在某些事由出現(xiàn)時(shí)各方的利益沖突應(yīng)如何分配和處理;如果事先沒有約定,則需要在清算事實(shí)發(fā)生之后,為自己的利益保障找到一個(gè)承擔(dān)責(zé)任的載體。對(duì)于該載體而言,首先我們應(yīng)該明確這類載體的身份,其次把相應(yīng)責(zé)任或者說是相應(yīng)的利益訴求分配到他們身上,使他們成為眾權(quán)利者利益受損時(shí)可以追訴的對(duì)象。所以,首先我們就要給予這類責(zé)任主體劃定一個(gè)較為清晰的范圍和相對(duì)明確的概念。 從立法的角度看,大陸法系國(guó)家的立法中很少使用清算義務(wù)人的概念,而是直接規(guī)定“法定清算人”,國(guó)內(nèi)也有學(xué)者持同樣觀點(diǎn)。所以清算義務(wù)人目前還是一個(gè)理論上的概念。本文的第一部分從中外立法中尋找與定義清算義務(wù)人,定位的方法以清算義務(wù)的承擔(dān)為邏輯起點(diǎn)。 清算義務(wù)人的界定即從理論的各個(gè)角度給清算義務(wù)人劃定范圍,既要將其區(qū)別于相類似的概念,也要闡述這一概念的內(nèi)涵和外延。想要確定清算義務(wù)人,必須先明晰一些理論爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。清算義務(wù)人的身份在立法中沒有明確被界定,所以理論界關(guān)于這一概念存在爭(zhēng)議。本文的第二部分首先分析清算義務(wù)的內(nèi)涵,目的是明確如何從義務(wù)的角度確定相關(guān)責(zé)任人;再次,從相關(guān)概念上看,有學(xué)者認(rèn)為清算義務(wù)人與清算人是同一類人,不應(yīng)對(duì)這兩者進(jìn)行區(qū)分,有學(xué)者則認(rèn)為這兩個(gè)概念有交叉重合的內(nèi)容,但更多的是相互義務(wù)與責(zé)任的不同。所以,區(qū)分清算人與清算義務(wù)人十分重要。再者,在公司清算階段,涉及眾多利益分配問題,為了保障這些利益能夠落到實(shí)處,必須為相關(guān)權(quán)利人尋找責(zé)任主體,以保障其利益受損時(shí)的救濟(jì)。公司清算過程中有許多有待落實(shí)的相關(guān)責(zé)任,哪些責(zé)任屬于清算義務(wù)人違反清算義務(wù)時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任,從責(zé)任的角度劃定清算義務(wù)人,既有利于這一概念的定位,也明確了該義務(wù)主體的責(zé)任。 文章的最后一部分,首先界定清算義務(wù)人的法律地位,而后著重分析清算義務(wù)人承擔(dān)一系列清算責(zé)任的原因。股東和董事是與公司有著密切關(guān)系的內(nèi)部人,作為清算義務(wù)人,其義務(wù)責(zé)任一方面來源于與公司的關(guān)系,一方面基于這種身份關(guān)系產(chǎn)生的義務(wù),在公司清算階段演變成為對(duì)公司、其他股東以及公司債權(quán)人的清算義務(wù)。最后從法律規(guī)制的角度對(duì)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理解散的企業(yè)法人所涉民事糾紛案件具體適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定(征求意見稿)》以及《公司法解釋(二)》做出了立法完善建議。
[Abstract]:Clearly defining the scope of liquidation obligor is of great significance in the process of company liquidation. In the process of the liquidation of the company, there are many stakeholders involved, such as the creditors of the company, the company itself and the shareholders of the company. Their respective interests are in an uncertain state during the liquidation phase of the company. In this game of interests, everyone's interests are likely to be violated. In order to prevent the interests of these subjects of rights from being impaired, the parties concerned may agree in advance on the distribution and handling of the conflict of interest of the parties in the event of the occurrence of certain causes; if there is no prior agreement, it is necessary after the fact of liquidation has taken place, Find a carrier of responsibility for your own interests. For the carrier, first of all, we should make clear the identity of this kind of carrier, and then assign the corresponding responsibility or corresponding interest demand to them, so that they can be the object of prosecution when the interests of the rights are damaged. So, first, we should give this kind of responsibility subject a clearer scope and relatively clear concept. From the legislative point of view, the concept of liquidation obligor is seldom used in the legislation of civil law countries, but it is directly stipulated as "statutory liquidator". Some domestic scholars hold the same view. So liquidation obligor is still a theoretical concept. The first part of this paper looks for and defines the liquidation obligor from Chinese and foreign legislation, and the logical starting point is the assumption of liquidation obligation. The definition of liquidation obligor is to delimit the scope of liquidation obligor from each angle of theory. It is necessary to distinguish it from the similar concept, but also to expound the connotation and extension of this concept. In order to determine the liquidation obligor, it is necessary to clarify some theoretical points of contention. The identity of liquidation obligor is not clearly defined in the legislation, so there is controversy about this concept in the theoretical circle. The second part of this paper first analyzes the connotation of liquidation obligations, the purpose is to clarify how to determine the relevant responsible persons from the perspective of obligations; thirdly, from the relevant concepts, some scholars think that liquidation obligor and liquidator are the same kind of person. There should be no distinction between the two. Some scholars think that the two concepts have overlapping content, but they are more different from each other in terms of obligations and responsibilities. Therefore, it is very important to distinguish liquidator from liquidation obligor. Furthermore, in the liquidation stage, there are many problems involved in the distribution of interests. In order to ensure that these interests can be implemented, we must find the main body of responsibility for the relevant obligee, in order to protect the relief when their interests are damaged. There are many relevant responsibilities to be implemented in the liquidation process of a company, which are the responsibilities that the liquidation obligor should bear when violating the liquidation obligation, and delineating the liquidation obligor from the perspective of liability is beneficial to the positioning of this concept. It also clarifies the responsibility of the subject of the obligation. In the last part of the article, the author defines the legal status of liquidation obligor, and then analyzes the reason why liquidation obligor bears a series of liquidation responsibilities. Shareholders and directors are insiders who have close relationship with the company. As liquidation obligors, the obligations of shareholders and directors are derived from the relationship with the company on the one hand, and the obligations arising from this kind of identity relationship on the other. During the liquidation phase, it becomes a liquidation obligation to the company, other shareholders and the creditors of the company. Finally, from the perspective of legal regulation, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the specific application of the law to the civil dispute cases involving the dissolution of an enterprise legal person (draft for solicitation of opinions) > and the interpretation of Company Law (2) > are made. Some suggestions for legislative perfection are given.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李建偉;;公司清算義務(wù)人基本問題研究[J];北方法學(xué);2010年02期

2 王保樹,楊繼;論股份公司控制股東的義務(wù)與責(zé)任[J];法學(xué);2002年02期

3 韓長(zhǎng)印,樓孝海;建立公司法定清算人制度[J];法學(xué);2005年08期

4 常素云;董事與公司關(guān)系的法理分析[J];河北法學(xué);2002年03期

5 張民安;董事忠實(shí)義務(wù)研究[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1997年05期

6 陸利兵;;析公司清算的民事責(zé)任[J];人民司法;2005年04期

7 王文麗;對(duì)公司解散后清算組久拖不立的法律思考[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2005年12期

8 趙建良;冀懷棟;;論清算公司的法律地位及其訴訟問題[J];山東審判;2007年03期

9 張嶠,虞振威;論公司非破產(chǎn)清算義務(wù)人的確立及責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年01期

10 王懷勇;;董事義務(wù)的比較法研究[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2009年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 楊玲;公司清算義務(wù)人研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2005年

2 何超凡;公司清算義務(wù)人研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

3 王曉宇;公司清算義務(wù)人法律制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2088164