發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-29 20:39

  本文選題：公司法　切入點(diǎn)：司法解散　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)2005年修訂、2006年施行的《中華人民共和國(guó)公司法》第183條引入、確立了公司司法解散制度,賦予股東在公司陷入僵局、出現(xiàn)經(jīng)營(yíng)管理嚴(yán)重困難之時(shí),得以向法院訴請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制解散公司、收回出資、免遭更大利益損失的權(quán)利。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),這一制度對(duì)維護(hù)股東合法權(quán)益、完善我國(guó)公司法律體系方面具有重大意義。然而深究其里,不難發(fā)現(xiàn)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律條文對(duì)于該制度并未予以清晰、詳盡的規(guī)定,而司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)于該條文的適用更是出現(xiàn)了許多不確定、存在爭(zhēng)議性的問(wèn)題。 本文立足于《公司法》第183條的條文含義,以十年來(lái)我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)公司解散訴訟判決的分析為基礎(chǔ),從而對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)實(shí)踐中該制度的適用予以刻畫(huà)描述,發(fā)掘其中立法空隙、司法爭(zhēng)議存在之處,并結(jié)合現(xiàn)階段學(xué)術(shù)界的理論探討,試圖為解決實(shí)踐中存在的問(wèn)題提供解決思路,以推動(dòng)、完善我國(guó)公司司法解散制度。 文章主體分為兩個(gè)部分。第一章是對(duì)十年來(lái)司法實(shí)踐中公司解散訴訟判決的整理分析,依據(jù)2005年《公司法》的修訂、2008年相關(guān)司法解釋的出臺(tái),進(jìn)而以時(shí)間為界限劃分三個(gè)階段,對(duì)每個(gè)階段中的案例予以歸納總結(jié),并對(duì)于每個(gè)階段的司法實(shí)踐予以評(píng)價(jià),從而清晰地梳理出解散公司訴訟在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的演化脈絡(luò),以及公司司法解散制度相關(guān)條文對(duì)于司法實(shí)踐的影響。第二章是對(duì)第一章案例分析中所發(fā)掘的一些問(wèn)題的討論。針對(duì)我國(guó)立法、司法中存在的空隙、爭(zhēng)議,筆者試圖結(jié)合相關(guān)理論探討,對(duì)上述問(wèn)題予以定性,從而提供解決問(wèn)題的思路,以彌補(bǔ)現(xiàn)行法律之空白、司法之不足。文章的最終結(jié)論部分將對(duì)全文予以總結(jié)概述,揭示現(xiàn)階段我國(guó)公司司法解散制度的困惑,呼吁關(guān)注該制度的核心價(jià)值之所在,實(shí)現(xiàn)該制度的設(shè)計(jì)意義。
[Abstract]:Revised in 2005 and introduced in Article 183 of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China in 2006, the system of judicial dissolution of the company was established, and the shareholders were given the right to face serious difficulties in the management and management of the company when the company was deadlocked. To be able to apply to the court for the compulsory dissolution of the company, the right to recover its capital contribution and to avoid greater loss of interest. There is no doubt that this system is of great significance in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders and improving the legal system of our country's companies. It is not difficult to find that the current legal provisions of our country are not clear and detailed, and in judicial practice, there are many uncertain and controversial problems in the application of this provision. Based on the meaning of Article 183 of Company Law, this article is based on the analysis of the judgment of dissolution of company in judicial practice in our country in the past ten years, so as to describe the application of this system in practical practice and explore the gaps in legislation. In order to promote and perfect the system of judicial dissolution of companies in China, this paper tries to provide solutions to the problems in practice by combining the theoretical discussion of the present academic circles with the existence of judicial disputes. The main body of the article is divided into two parts. The first chapter is the analysis of the judicial practice in the past ten years, according to the revision of the Company Law in 2005, the introduction of the relevant judicial interpretation in 2008. Then divide the three stages with time as the limit, sum up the cases in each stage, and evaluate the judicial practice in each stage, so as to clearly sort out the evolution of the dissolution of company litigation in the judicial practice of our country. The second chapter is the discussion of some problems excavated in the case analysis of the first chapter. In view of the gaps and disputes in the legislation and judicature of our country, the second chapter is about the influence of the relevant provisions of the judicial dissolution system on the judicial practice. The author tries to combine the relevant theory discussion, gives the qualitative analysis to the above question, thus provides the thought of solving the problem, in order to make up the gap of the current law and the insufficiency of the judicature. The final conclusion part of the article will summarize the full text. This paper reveals the confusion of the system of judicial dissolution of companies in our country at present, and appeals to pay attention to the core value of the system and to realize the design significance of the system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡光志;楊署東;;信義義務(wù)下的美國(guó)小股東保護(hù)制度及其借鑒[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2008年06期

2 楊署東;;合理期待原則下的美國(guó)股東權(quán)益救濟(jì)制度及其啟示[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年02期

3 劉敏;;關(guān)于股東請(qǐng)求解散公司之訴若干問(wèn)題的思考[J];法律適用;2006年10期

4 鮑為民;美國(guó)法上的公司僵局處理制度及其啟示[J];法商研究;2005年03期

5 稅兵;;在表象與事實(shí)之間:股東資格確定的模式選擇[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年01期

6 王懌;;論公司僵局及其司法救濟(jì)路徑——兼談新《公司法》第183條之規(guī)定[J];法學(xué)與實(shí)踐;2007年06期

7 范黎紅;;有限責(zé)任公司司法裁判解散的困惑及法理思考[J];法學(xué);2007年04期

8 龔媛媛;;公司司法解散制度的價(jià)值分析[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年20期

9 鄭瑞平;;論隱名股東利益之法律保護(hù)[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

10 王斌周;;論公司司法解散的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——從公司人合性和資合性要素考察[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2007年22期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 廣東省佛山市禪城區(qū)人民法院 孫謙 李舒嘯;[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1682752