本文選題：代位權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)　出處：《浙江大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：一個公司的成立以資本的注入為前提條件,股東按照認(rèn)繳的出資額足額繳納出資,這些出資構(gòu)成了公司的原始資本,是公司得以運(yùn)行的物質(zhì)基礎(chǔ)和前提保障。即便如此,在我國股東未履行或者未全面履行出資義務(wù)的行為卻廣泛發(fā)生,這嚴(yán)重?fù)p害了公司相對方—公司債權(quán)人的利益。但是縱觀目前學(xué)術(shù)界的研究現(xiàn)狀,大部分的研究主要集中在當(dāng)股東存在未履行或者未全面履行出資義務(wù)的行為時(shí),其對公司以及其他按約履行出資義務(wù)的股東的責(zé)任,而其究竟應(yīng)該對公司的債權(quán)人承擔(dān)什么責(zé)任研究的卻相對較少。考慮到在目前處在公司資本制度改革的大環(huán)境下,法律對股東如何繳納注冊資本、何時(shí)繳納注冊資本,不再予以嚴(yán)格的規(guī)定,驗(yàn)資程序也相應(yīng)地廢除,這勢必會造成股東未不按期繳納出資義務(wù)的行為更加常見,因此突出對公司債權(quán)人權(quán)利的保護(hù)很有必要。雖然也有一些學(xué)者就公司債權(quán)人的利益保護(hù)為切入點(diǎn)進(jìn)行研究探求《公司法司法解釋三》第13條第2款中公司債權(quán)人對未履行或者未全面履行出資義務(wù)的股東的補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)的性質(zhì),但是大部分是直接得出該請求權(quán)的性質(zhì)屬于代位權(quán),然后再從代位權(quán)的要件的基礎(chǔ)上對此加以分析。筆者另辟蹊徑,通過一些法院相互矛盾的案例引出該條文在適用中出現(xiàn)的問題,然后分別從邏輯解釋層面和文義解釋層面上對關(guān)于該條請求權(quán)的性質(zhì)的學(xué)說加以比較分析。本文由四個部分組成。第一部分,筆者從法院的幾個矛盾判例出發(fā),指出債權(quán)人在適用《公司法司法解釋三》第13條第2款的相關(guān)規(guī)定追究未履行或者未全面履行出資義務(wù)的股東的補(bǔ)充賠償責(zé)任存在的問題,并指出產(chǎn)生該問題的原因是理論上對公司債權(quán)人補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的學(xué)說沒有統(tǒng)一。第二部分,筆者從理論層面上關(guān)于公司債權(quán)人補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的三個學(xué)說進(jìn)行比較分析,得出代位權(quán)說能更加合理的解釋公司債權(quán)人補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的結(jié)論。第三部分,筆者從文義理解層面對關(guān)于公司債權(quán)人補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的三個學(xué)說進(jìn)行比較,得出代位權(quán)說更加契合《公司法司法解釋三》關(guān)于公司債權(quán)人補(bǔ)充賠償請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的規(guī)定。第四部分,筆者在針對"不入庫"規(guī)則的弊端進(jìn)行分析之后,提出了回復(fù)傳統(tǒng)代位權(quán)說的"入庫"規(guī)則,并對完善"入庫"規(guī)則提出了一些建議。
[Abstract]:The establishment of a company by capital injection as the prerequisite, the shareholders in accordance with the amount of the capital contributions subscribed for full payment of capital contributions, these contributions constitute the company's original capital, is the prerequisite and material base in the operation of the company. Even so, in our country the shareholders did not perform or not fully fulfill the obligation of capital contribution behavior is widespread serious damage to the company, the party and the interests of creditors. But look at the status of academe at present, most of the studies focused on when the shareholder fails to fulfill or fails to fully fulfill the obligation of capital contribution is performed, the responsibility of the company and other shareholders to perform the obligation of capital contribution, and it should bear what responsibility of the creditors of the company is relatively small. Considering the reform of the system of company is currently in the capital of the environment law for shareholders to pay registration When capital, pay the registered capital, no longer be strict rules of verification procedures accordingly abolished, it is bound to cause the shareholders do not pay the capital contribution obligation behavior is more common, so it is necessary to focus on protecting the company creditor's rights. Although there are some scholars on the protection of the interests of the creditors of the company as a starting point for research to explore the "company law judicial interpretation three > thirteenth paragraph second of the creditors of the company fails to perform or supplement the nature of the compensation is not fully fulfill the obligation of capital contribution of the shareholders the right to request, but most are the properties obtained directly the request right belongs to the right of subrogation, and then from the basic elements of the subrogation rights on this the author analyzes. Another way, through a number of conflicting court case leads to the provisions in the application of the problems, and then from the logical level and the level of literal interpretation On the nature of claim of the theory of comparative analysis. This paper consists of four parts. The first part, the author from the court case of several contradictions, pointed out that the creditors in the application of the "company law judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the second paragraph of article three of the investigation did not fulfill or > thirteenth problems not fully fulfill the obligation of capital contribution of shareholders the responsibility of compensation, and pointed out that the reason is the theory of corporate creditors claim compensation nature theory there is no uniform. The second part, the author analyzed theoretically the three theories about the nature of the right to request compensation of creditors of the company, said that the right of subrogation can more reasonable interpretation of creditors of the company the nature of the right to request compensation conclusion. The third part, the author from the meaning of understanding in the face of three theories about the creditors of the company compensation request right Compared to that of right of subrogation that agrees with the judicial interpretation of the company law > < three of the creditors of the company the right to request compensation for supplementary provisions of the nature. The fourth part, the author analyzes the shortcomings in the following "instockroom" rules, proposed a return to a traditional subrogation "storage" rules, and puts forward some suggestions for improvement "storage" rules.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 周s，

本文編號：1591805