本文選題：監(jiān)事 + 代表訴訟��； 參考：《浙江師范大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：監(jiān)事代表訴訟是指當(dāng)公司的董事、高級管理人員、控制股東、關(guān)聯(lián)公司等侵害公司利益時,公司監(jiān)事會或監(jiān)事可以自己的名義代表公司提起訴訟。它包括監(jiān)事會代表訴訟和監(jiān)事代表訴訟。在公司法領(lǐng)域熱議機(jī)構(gòu)訴訟的背景下,監(jiān)事會作為公司內(nèi)部監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu),依法有權(quán)監(jiān)督董事會和高級管理人員,并通過代表訴訟強(qiáng)化和救濟(jì)其監(jiān)督權(quán)。監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度能否實(shí)現(xiàn)其制度價值,能否在我國得到切實(shí)踐行,值得探討。本文旨在通過歷史分析法、案例分析法、比較分析法等研究方法,揭示目前我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度存在的問題,在比較借鑒德日兩國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的經(jīng)驗(yàn)基礎(chǔ)上,以期完善我國的監(jiān)事代表訴訟法律制度。除引言和結(jié)語外,本文共分成四部分：第一部分是監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度概述。首先,界定了監(jiān)事代表訴訟的概念,概括分析了其具備代位性、代表性、給付性、程序性的特征。其次,介紹了我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的立法背景。最后,從強(qiáng)化監(jiān)事權(quán)力以加強(qiáng)公司制衡、完善監(jiān)督機(jī)制和降低代理成本三方面分別闡述完善我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的必要性。第二部分是我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的現(xiàn)狀和問題。此部分研究主要基于搜集案例基礎(chǔ)之上。我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟存在諸多問題和不完善之處,如訴訟當(dāng)事人地位不明確,包括原告、被告和公司訴訟地位不明確,監(jiān)事的訴訟代表權(quán)不明確及與法定代表人制度的沖突,監(jiān)事代表訴訟啟動的程序不明確,以及未確立個人監(jiān)事代表訴訟權(quán)等問題。第三部分是國外監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度主要是德日兩國的理論探討和實(shí)踐。主要介紹了德國的監(jiān)事會制度和日本的監(jiān)察人制度,探討了德國法上的機(jī)構(gòu)訴訟,比較分析了德日兩國的監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度,尋求建立我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的法理基礎(chǔ)和法律規(guī)則。第四部分為我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的法律完善。首先是要轉(zhuǎn)變立法和司法理念,增強(qiáng)立法的可訴性和樹立凡訴必立的司法理念,堅持公司自治和司法的有限干預(yù)原則。其次,提出完善我國監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的建議,包括明確監(jiān)事的訴訟代表權(quán)、明確訴訟當(dāng)事人地位、完善監(jiān)事代表訴訟的前置程序、建立監(jiān)事激勵和約束機(jī)制以及監(jiān)事代表訴訟的訴訟費(fèi)用和訴訟擔(dān)保制度。然后對可能的監(jiān)事代表訴訟制度的濫用進(jìn)行了法律規(guī)制,包括其權(quán)利的行使須基于法定事由、嚴(yán)格監(jiān)事選任資格強(qiáng)化其獨(dú)立性、明確監(jiān)事的義務(wù)和責(zé)任以及監(jiān)事代表訴訟的和解及撤銷等措施。
[Abstract]:Supervisor's representative litigation means that when the company's directors, senior managers, controlling shareholders, affiliated companies and other violations of the interests of the company, the company's board of supervisors or supervisors can file a lawsuit on behalf of the company in its own name.It includes board of supervisors on behalf of litigation and supervisors on behalf of litigation.Under the background of the litigation in the field of corporate law, the supervisory board, as the internal supervisory organization of the company, has the power to supervise the board of directors and senior managers according to law, and to strengthen and remedy its supervisory power through representative litigation.It is worth discussing whether the supervisor representative litigation system can realize its system value and be put into practice in our country.Through historical analysis, case analysis, comparative analysis and other research methods, this paper aims to reveal the problems existing in the current supervisory representative litigation system in our country, and on the basis of comparing the experiences of the two countries' supervisors' representative litigation system.In order to perfect the legal system of supervisor representative litigation in our country.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of the supervisor's representative litigation system.Firstly, the concept of supervisor representative action is defined, and the characteristics of subrogation, representativeness, affordability and procedure are analyzed.Secondly, it introduces the legislative background of our country's supervisor representative litigation system.Finally, the necessity of perfecting the supervisor's representative litigation system in China is expounded from three aspects: strengthening the supervisor's power to strengthen the company's checks and balances, perfecting the supervision mechanism and reducing the agency cost.The second part is the current situation and problems of the supervisor representative litigation system in China.This part of the study is mainly based on the collection of cases on the basis.There are many problems and imperfections in the litigation of supervisors' representatives in China, such as the unclear status of litigants, including the litigation status of the plaintiff, the defendant and the company, the unclear representation of the supervisor and the conflict with the legal representative system.The procedure of supervisor's representative litigation is not clear, and the personal supervisor's representative's litigation right is not established.The third part is mainly the theory and practice of Germany and Japan.This paper mainly introduces the supervisory board system in Germany and the supervisory system in Japan, probes into the institutional litigation in German law, and compares and analyzes the supervisory representative litigation system in Germany and Japan.This paper seeks to establish the legal basis and legal rules of the supervisor's representative litigation system in our country.The fourth part is the legal perfection of the supervisor representative litigation system in our country.The first is to change the legislative and judicial concepts, strengthen the actionable nature of the legislation and establish the judicial concept of all litigation, and adhere to the principles of corporate autonomy and limited judicial intervention.Secondly, it puts forward some suggestions to perfect the litigation system of supervisors' representatives in our country, including clarifying the representation of supervisors, clarifying the status of litigant, perfecting the pre-procedure of supervisors' representative litigation.Set up the supervisor incentive and restraint mechanism, the lawsuit cost and lawsuit guarantee system of supervisor representative litigation.Then the abuse of the possible supervisor representative litigation system is regulated by law, including that the exercise of its rights should be based on the legal reasons, and that the supervisors should be strictly qualified to select and strengthen their independence.Make clear the duties and responsibilities of supervisor and the settlement and revocation of supervisor's representative action.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李秀文;;日本公司法對我國公司立法的啟示[J];福州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2015年06期

2 趙萬一;張長健;;后立法時代的中國公司法可訴性[J];北方法學(xué);2014年01期

3 徐浩;;日本公司監(jiān)事制度的演變及啟示[J];日本研究;2011年01期

4 沈貴明;;股東代表訴訟前置程序的適格主體[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年02期

5 強(qiáng)力;;關(guān)聯(lián)公司間訴訟的異化及其對策研究[J];河北法學(xué);2007年05期

6 蔣大興;;公司自治與裁判寬容——新《公司法》視野下的裁判思維[J];法學(xué)家;2006年06期

7 甘培忠;;公司監(jiān)督機(jī)制的利益相關(guān)者與核心結(jié)構(gòu)——由中國公司法規(guī)定的監(jiān)督機(jī)制觀察[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年05期

8 龍衛(wèi)球;李清池;;公司內(nèi)部治理機(jī)制的改進(jìn):“董事會-監(jiān)事會”二元結(jié)構(gòu)模式的調(diào)整[J];比較法研究;2005年06期

9 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

10 黃來紀(jì) ,陳禹志 ,金永明;日本監(jiān)事的監(jiān)督標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];上海國資;2005年05期

，

本文編號：1732578