本文選題：公司司法解散程序　切入點(diǎn)：公司治理　出處：《太原科技大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：2005年《公司法》第183條從實(shí)體上賦予了股東訴訟解散公司的請(qǐng)求權(quán),2008年《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國公司法〉若干問題的規(guī)定(二)》僅僅明確了股東訴訟解散公司案件的訴訟事由、被告、調(diào)解和效力幾個(gè)程序性問題。股東有解散公司的請(qǐng)求權(quán)已毫無疑問,但是具體在程序方面如何保障股東的請(qǐng)求權(quán)和是否拓寬司法解散的范圍仍然沒有一個(gè)完整的說法。因此,文章深入分析公司司法解散程序的理論基礎(chǔ),找出我國公司司法解散程序存在的主要問題,借鑒國外先進(jìn)的立法、司法經(jīng)驗(yàn),細(xì)化我國現(xiàn)有的股東訴訟解散公司程序、拓寬公益性公司司法解散的管道,更好的指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)踐。 公司司法解散程序是在公司自治本身的局限性和國家行使經(jīng)濟(jì)管理職能的雙重促進(jìn)下產(chǎn)生的,其本質(zhì)是國家對(duì)公司自治的調(diào)節(jié)。公司治理機(jī)制分為內(nèi)部機(jī)制和外部協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制�；谒椒ㄗ灾魏推跫s自由理論,公司治理首先依靠內(nèi)部機(jī)制,單純的自治可能引發(fā)多數(shù)人的暴政,小股東權(quán)益受到侵害卻無從救濟(jì)。在自治失靈時(shí),需要國家權(quán)力從外部對(duì)其進(jìn)行調(diào)節(jié)。比較行政和司法兩種國家權(quán)力方式,司法介入公司治理能彌補(bǔ)公司自治可能導(dǎo)致的不公平行為,是一種最為公正、有效的方式。但是司法手段并非萬能,司法裁判的結(jié)果直接影響公司經(jīng)營,甚至阻礙公司的發(fā)展,因此,司法介入公司治理要把握合理的限度,針對(duì)不同的司法解散案件適用訴訟和非訴訟的不同方式。 在國外,公司司法解散程序依據(jù)保護(hù)權(quán)益的不同分為公法意義上的命令解散程序和私法意義上的判決解散程序。由于所保護(hù)的法益不同,這兩種司法解散程序在提起主體、事由以及解決糾紛的具體方式等方面都存在較大區(qū)別。通過考察美國、日本等幾個(gè)特例國家的司法解散程序,發(fā)現(xiàn)國外在司法介入公司治理限度把握、法官的自由裁量權(quán)和程序立法的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)上是值得我們借鑒的。此時(shí),我國公司司法解散程序的缺陷凸現(xiàn)出來,主要包括效益的要求與程序正義的沖突、期望與現(xiàn)實(shí)的差距、缺乏非訴程序等。 針對(duì)我國公司司法解散程序的現(xiàn)狀,可以從兩個(gè)方面完善公司司法解散程序:第一,從合理配置舉證責(zé)任、防止惡意的解散訴訟和充實(shí)替代性救濟(jì)等幾個(gè)角度對(duì)現(xiàn)有股東訴訟解散公司程序進(jìn)行改良;第二,選擇具有我國特色的立法模式,建立公司司法解散的非訴程序,完整公司司法解散程序。
[Abstract]:Article 183 of the 2005 Company Law gives the shareholders the right to apply for the dissolution of the company. In 2008, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China (2) only specified the shares. The cause of action in the case of dissolution of a company in an East China lawsuit, The defendant, mediation and effectiveness of several procedural issues. Shareholders have the right to dissolve the company no doubt, However, how to protect the shareholders' right of claim and whether to broaden the scope of judicial dissolution is still not a complete statement. Therefore, the article deeply analyzes the theoretical basis of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company. Find out the main problems existing in the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country, draw lessons from the advanced legislation and judicial experience of foreign countries, refine the existing shareholder lawsuit dissolution procedure of our country, widen the channel of judicial dissolution of the public welfare company. Better guide judicial practice. The judicial dissolution procedure of the company is brought about by the limitation of the company autonomy itself and the dual promotion of the economic management function of the state. Its essence is the state's regulation of corporate autonomy. Corporate governance mechanism is divided into internal mechanism and external coordination mechanism. Based on the theory of private law autonomy and freedom of contract, corporate governance depends first on internal mechanism. Simple autonomy may lead to the tyranny of the majority, but the rights and interests of minority shareholders are infringed but there is no remedy. When the autonomy fails, it needs the state power to regulate it from the outside. Judicial intervention in corporate governance can make up for the unfair behavior that may result from corporate autonomy, which is the most just and effective way. However, judicial means are not omnipotent. The result of judicial decision directly affects the management of the company and even hinders the development of the company. Therefore, judicial intervention in corporate governance should grasp reasonable limits and apply different ways of litigation and non-litigation to different cases of judicial dissolution. In foreign countries, the judicial dissolution procedure of a company is divided into public law order dissolution procedure and private law decision dissolution procedure according to the difference of protecting rights and interests. There are great differences in the cause of the matter and in the specific ways of resolving disputes. By investigating the judicial dissolution procedures in the United States, Japan and other special countries, we find that foreign countries have grasped the limits of judicial intervention in corporate governance. The judge's discretion and the successful experience of procedural legislation are worthy of our reference. At this time, the defects of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country are highlighted, including the conflict between the requirements of benefit and procedural justice, and the gap between expectation and reality. Lack of non-prosecution procedures, etc. In view of the present situation of the judicial dissolution procedure of the company in our country, we can perfect the judicial dissolution procedure of the company from two aspects: first, from the reasonable allocation of the burden of proof, To prevent malicious dissolution of litigation and enrich alternative relief to improve the existing shareholder litigation dissolution of the company procedures; second, choose the legislative model with Chinese characteristics, establish the judicial dissolution of the company's non-litigation procedures, Complete judicial dissolution of the company.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：太原科技大學(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9條

1 羅培新;;填補(bǔ)公司合同“縫隙”——司法介入公司運(yùn)作的一個(gè)分析框架[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年01期

2 黃美園,周彥;我國公司僵局司法救濟(jì)制度之構(gòu)建[J];法律適用;2004年05期

3 繆劍文;公司運(yùn)作的司法程序保障初探[J];法學(xué);1998年05期

4 黃長營;譚素青;;公司僵局司法強(qiáng)制解散程序初探[J];河北法學(xué);2007年06期

5 胡濱,曹順明;股東派生訴訟的合理性基礎(chǔ)與制度設(shè)計(jì)[J];法學(xué)研究;2004年04期

6 王偉,陳學(xué)芹;有限責(zé)任公司股東解散請(qǐng)求權(quán)芻論[J];人民司法;2002年07期

7 劉桂清;公司治理的司法保障——司法介入公司治理的法理分析[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2005年04期

8 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

9 王紅一;論公司自治的實(shí)質(zhì)[J];中山大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 中國政法大學(xué)教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 趙旭東;[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

2 劉 敏;[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 楊勤法;論公司治理的司法介入[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

2 金海平;公司司法解散制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 朱模鋒;論公司的司法解散[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

2 陳穎韞;有限責(zé)任公司僵局狀態(tài)下的司法救濟(jì)制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

3 張璐;公司僵局及其司法介入制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

4 趙強(qiáng);公司僵局下我國公司司法解散制度的審查[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

5 陳立為;破解公司僵局的法律路徑探析[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

6 張福興;我國股東訴請(qǐng)解散公司制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1700065