本文選題：司法解散　切入點(diǎn)：公司僵局　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：司法解散制度的出臺是自《公司法》頒布以來所作出的最重大的一次系統(tǒng)性修訂的成果之一，該制度是當(dāng)公司嚴(yán)重違法并嚴(yán)重侵犯債權(quán)人利益時(shí)，，或是當(dāng)公司內(nèi)部股東、董事之間出現(xiàn)糾紛在采取其他的處理手段不能平息矛盾時(shí)而賦予債權(quán)人、股東的一種最終的司法救濟(jì)方式。但是由于我國《公司法》對司法解散制度規(guī)定比較模糊，“公司僵局”是法院判決公司解散的前提，在如何認(rèn)定公司陷入了公司僵局，衡量公司經(jīng)營管理是否發(fā)生嚴(yán)重困難，是否通過其他途徑不能解決等具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上產(chǎn)生了不同的觀點(diǎn)：有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為訴請解散的請求應(yīng)堅(jiān)持有限責(zé)任公司的“人合性”基礎(chǔ)兼采資合性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以公司在經(jīng)濟(jì)上具有可持續(xù)性為參照；也有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為有限公司“資合性”應(yīng)當(dāng)以“人合性”為基礎(chǔ)，無論是在公司發(fā)生沖突之前或者是在訴訟中，“人合性”已經(jīng)不存在的情況下，這種狀態(tài)并不能認(rèn)定公司的繼續(xù)存在不會(huì)對公司資產(chǎn)造成重大損失，已然陷入僵局。 本文通過《楊某請求解散××化工公司案》為例對兩級法院的審判進(jìn)行分析比較，首先對案件經(jīng)過及判決過程進(jìn)行簡述，從宏觀角度說明爭議的理由和背景，并提煉出爭議焦點(diǎn)，從而揭示本文所要探討的中心和主題；然后對公司法第183條的三個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行分析，即對法院認(rèn)定三個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行合法性和合理性探討，根據(jù)現(xiàn)行立法意圖，歸納其依據(jù)，對其每個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)結(jié)合案例進(jìn)行小結(jié)，最后對解決司法解散法律條款在適用中出現(xiàn)的問題在司法和立法方面提出建議，以完善該制度在實(shí)踐中的適用。
[Abstract]:The introduction of the judicial dissolution system is one of the most important systematic revisions made since the promulgation of the Company Law. The system is when the company seriously violates the law and seriously infringes the interests of the creditors, or when the shareholders inside the company. Disputes between directors are given to creditors when other means of dealing with them do not settle the conflict. However, due to the vague stipulation of the judicial dissolution system in the Company Law of our country, the "company deadlock" is the premise of the court ruling on the dissolution of the company, and how to determine that the company has reached a corporate deadlock. To measure whether there are serious difficulties in the management of the company, There are different views on the specific criteria, such as whether or not they can not be solved by other means: there is a view that the request for dissolution should adhere to the "personal compatibility" basis of limited liability companies and the standard of capital compatibility. Reference is made to the economic sustainability of the company; there is also the view that the "partnership" of a limited company should be based on the "human nature", No matter before the conflict of the company or in the lawsuit, the "human nature" no longer exists, this state can not assume that the continued existence of the company will not cause significant losses to the company's assets, and has reached an impasse. Through the case of Yang Mou's request to dissolve 脳 脳 Chemical Company as an example, this paper analyzes and compares the trial of the two levels of court. First of all, it briefly describes the process of the case and the judgment process, and explains the reasons and background of the dispute from a macroscopic angle. Then the article analyzes the three standards of Article 183 of the Company Law, namely, the legitimacy and rationality of the three standards of court determination, according to the current legislative intent. It summarizes its basis, summarizes each standard combined with cases, and finally puts forward some suggestions on the judicial and legislative aspects to solve the problems in the application of the legal provisions of judicial dissolution, so as to perfect the application of the system in practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 歐陽玉瓊;;也論公司僵局的司法救濟(jì)[J];人民司法;2006年10期

2 甘培忠;公司司法解散:《公司法》中說不出的痛[J];中國律師;2002年09期

3 孫謙;;首例公司僵局訴訟實(shí)例分析[J];中國審判;2007年02期

4 范黎紅;論司法對公司僵局糾紛的分類介入[J];政治與法律;2005年01期

本文編號：1566501