本文選題：外部人反向刺破 + 適用條件　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：2005年《公司法》的頒布,標(biāo)志著理論界呼喚多年的公司法人人格否認(rèn)制度最終由理論探討變成了現(xiàn)實(shí)法律規(guī)定。轉(zhuǎn)眼間,10年過去了,10年之間,該制度不管是對我國經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展還是對社會(huì)資源的配置都起到了不可替代的推動(dòng)作用。并且我們也有理由相信,其貢獻(xiàn)必將隨著市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷深入發(fā)展而日益卓著;10年之間,我國的經(jīng)濟(jì)以及社會(huì)形勢也發(fā)生了巨大的變化,我們憂心地看到《公司法》中對該制度的規(guī)定在應(yīng)對這些變化方面已顯得力不從心。比如,在我國的司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的公司股東濫用其有限責(zé)任,將個(gè)人的財(cái)產(chǎn)無償或低價(jià)轉(zhuǎn)讓給公司,從而達(dá)到逃避債務(wù)的目的;以及母公司對子公司過度控制,導(dǎo)致二者在資金、人事、管理等方面混淆不清,最終母公司對外欠債且無力償還的情形等等�；谶@種現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定與司法實(shí)踐相脫節(jié)的狀況,筆者遂以“外部人反向刺破”為本文研究的重點(diǎn),以期通過對典型案例的分析,從而有助于此類新型案件的解決。本文除引言和結(jié)語外,主要有四個(gè)部分構(gòu)成:第一部分:簡要介紹案情以及由案件焦點(diǎn)。本文所選案例的被告正是一對母子公司,但在經(jīng)營管理中,由于母公司對子公司的過度控制,導(dǎo)致子公司淪為母公司的另一個(gè)自我,最終母公司無力償還所欠合同債務(wù),債權(quán)人請求將母子公司視為一體,要求子公司對相關(guān)債務(wù)承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任的情形。此案雖然最終經(jīng)二審法院調(diào)解結(jié)案,但是在案件處理過程中尤其是一審過程中所出現(xiàn)的一些法律問題卻值得人們深思,總結(jié)起來有三個(gè)方面:其一,本案能否適用“外部人反向刺破”,如果能,依據(jù)何在;其二,“外部人反向刺破”的適用條件有哪些;其三,本案中的寶力通信公司是否需要承擔(dān)責(zé)任,需承擔(dān)何種責(zé)任。第二部分:對由案件引發(fā)的三個(gè)焦點(diǎn)問題進(jìn)行分析。首先,從法理、現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定、現(xiàn)有法律制度的不足以及司法實(shí)踐的需要四個(gè)方面論述本案不但能夠適用“外部人反向刺破”,而且適用該制度是解決本案的最佳方法。其次,從主體、行為、主觀、結(jié)果四個(gè)方面分析了本案適用“外部人反向刺破”需滿足的條件。最后,對本案適用“外部人反向刺破”之后,作為子公司的寶力通信科技公司應(yīng)承擔(dān)何種責(zé)任做了一些探討。第三部分:跳出案例,回歸論題本身。筆者在這一部分主要總結(jié)了影響“外部人反向刺破”在我國適用的三個(gè)因素,分別為:理論研究的匱乏、法律規(guī)定的欠缺以及司法人員專業(yè)素養(yǎng)有待提高。第四部分:針對既存問題,提出相應(yīng)的解決對策。針對阻礙“外部人反向刺破”在我國適用的三個(gè)因素,筆者提出的對策分別為:多管齊下,完善法律規(guī)定;多措并舉,豐富理論研究;多路并進(jìn),確保司法公正。
[Abstract]:The promulgation of Company Law in 2005 marks that the system of denying corporate personality which has been called for many years by the theorists has finally changed from a theoretical discussion to a practical legal regulation.In a twinkling of an eye, ten years have passed, and the system has played an irreplaceable role in promoting the economic development of our country as well as the allocation of social resources.And we also have reason to believe that its contribution will grow with the deepening development of the market economy, and that in 10 years, the economic and social situation of our country has also undergone tremendous changes.We are worried to see that the provisions of the Company Law have been unable to cope with these changes.For example, in the judicial practice of our country, the shareholders of the company abuse their limited liability to transfer their personal property to the company free of charge or at a low price, so as to achieve the purpose of evading debts; and the parent company overcontrols its subsidiaries.It leads to the confusion of capital, personnel and management, and the final situation that the parent company is in debt and unable to repay it.Based on the disconnection between the existing legal regulations and the judicial practice, the author focuses on "the reverse pricking of the outside person" as the focus of this paper, in order to help solve the new type of cases through the analysis of the typical cases.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper consists of four parts: the first part: a brief introduction of the case and the focus of the case.The defendant of the case selected in this paper is a parent subsidiary, but in the management, the parent company becomes another self of the parent company because of the excessive control of the subsidiary company, and the parent company is unable to repay the contractual debt.The creditor requests that the parent subsidiary be regarded as an integral whole and that the subsidiary be jointly and severally liable for the related debt.Although the case was finally settled through mediation by the court of second instance, some legal problems that arose in the course of handling the case, especially in the process of first instance, are worth pondering over. In conclusion, there are three aspects: first,Whether the case can be applied to "external reverse piercing", if so, what is the basis; second, what are the applicable conditions of "external reverse piercing"; third, whether or not the Baolit Communications Company in this case should bear the responsibility and what kind of responsibility.The second part: the analysis of the three focus problems caused by the case.First of all, from the legal theory, the present law stipulation, the present legal system insufficiency and the judicial practice need four aspects to discuss the case not only can apply "the outside person reverse piercing", but also the application of this system is the best way to solve the case.Secondly, from the subject, behavior, subjective, the results of the four aspects of the case applicable to the "external person reverse piercing" need to meet the conditions.Finally, after the application of "the reverse piercing by outsiders" in this case, the liability of Baolit Communications Technology Company, as a subsidiary, is discussed.The third part: jump out of the case, return to the topic itself.In this part, the author summarizes the three factors that affect the application of "external reverse puncture" in our country, namely, the lack of theoretical research, the lack of legal provisions and the need to improve the professional quality of judicial personnel.The fourth part: in view of the existing problems, put forward the corresponding solutions.In view of the three factors that hinder the application of "external person reverse puncture" in our country, the author puts forward the countermeasures as follows: multi-pronged approach, perfect legal regulation, multi-measures and simultaneous development, enrich theoretical research, multi-way simultaneous advance, ensure judicial justice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王建文;論死者生前債務(wù)承擔(dān)[J];南京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

2 李顯先;債務(wù)承擔(dān)理論與審判實(shí)務(wù)[J];人民司法;2002年03期

3 胡健;;論免責(zé)債務(wù)承擔(dān)的構(gòu)成要件及法律效果[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)理人;2005年03期

4 魯建法;一起借款糾紛案的剖析——企業(yè)改制過程中的債務(wù)承擔(dān)問題[J];西部論叢;2005年03期

5 龔兵;;免責(zé)的債務(wù)承擔(dān)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年02期

6 張穎杰;萬良杰;;國企出售與債務(wù)承擔(dān)問題探討[J];商業(yè)時(shí)代;2007年03期

7 石濤鋒;尹曉健;;債務(wù)承擔(dān)若干法律問題研究及風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范[J];河北金融;2007年08期

8 張振;;債務(wù)承擔(dān)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定問題研究[J];濰坊學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年05期

9 張銑;;并存的債務(wù)承擔(dān)若干問題研究[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2008年11期

10 孔娜;;淺議并存?zhèn)鶆?wù)承擔(dān)若干問題[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 王傳益;該案債務(wù)承擔(dān)協(xié)議的效力及法律適用[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

2 上海海事法院 汪洋;貨運(yùn)代理合同中的并存?zhèn)鶆?wù)承擔(dān)[N];國際商報(bào);2006年

3 無錫市北塘區(qū)人民法院 高鑫;債務(wù)承擔(dān)若干法律問題研究[N];商務(wù)時(shí)報(bào);2008年

4 張秋婷　肖s，

本文編號：1736704