本文選題：股東盈余分配請求權 + 司法介入�。� 參考：《華東政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：股東對公司進行投資的最主要目的是獲取投資回報，各國公司法均明確規(guī)定了股東享有從公司獲得資產(chǎn)收益的權利。然而，由于公司各參與方的利益索求并不一致，導致司法實踐中的股東盈余分配請求權糾紛頻生。我國《公司法》對該權利的規(guī)定尚處于比較原則性的階段，各地、各級法院的理解和運用有著不同的態(tài)度，導致司法認定的不統(tǒng)一，“同案不同判”的現(xiàn)象廣泛存在。 本文通過考察股東盈余分配請求權的基礎理論及主要法域的法律規(guī)則，并結合司法實踐中出現(xiàn)的裁判困境，深入分析了股東盈余分配請求權的權利性質、權利層次，對該權利行使障礙的表現(xiàn)形式及深層原因進行類型化分析。針對司法介入股東盈余分配請求權的問題，，本文以公司合同理論視角論證了司法介入的正當性基礎，亦對不贊成司法介入的觀點進行了梳理。同時，比較分析了域外制度構建的典型做法。本文還重點對司法介入股東盈余分配請求權的限度進行分析，提出以抑制代理成本為司法介入的目標，以商業(yè)判斷準則和合理預期標準作為公司自治與司法介入的邊界，并且結合司法現(xiàn)狀提出法官審理此類案件的審判思路。 在導言部分對“司法介入股東盈余分配請求權”這一問題進行文獻梳理后，本文共分為六章進行具體的探討： 第一章主要展現(xiàn)司法實踐中的四個案例，體現(xiàn)出股東盈余分配請求權糾紛的司法審判存在差異，進而引出本文所要研究的法律問題。 第二章論述股東盈余分配請求權的概念、權利性質，將該權利劃分為抽象與 具體兩個權利層級，并闡述股東盈余分配請求權的行使基礎。第三章論證股東盈余分配請求權行使障礙的產(chǎn)生原因，并對不同表現(xiàn)形式的 行使障礙進行類型化分析。第四章以公司合同視角探討司法介入股東盈余分配請求權的正當性，并分析了學界的不同觀點，同時從比較法的視野對英美國家相關立法、司法現(xiàn)狀進行梳 理，探索其中對我國的借鑒與啟示。第五章從公司自治與司法介入的關系入手，指出司法介入股東盈余分配請求權的目標在于抑制公司代理成本，而其邊界要以商業(yè)判斷準則以及合理期待標準 來判定。第六章基于前述論證，對司法介入股東盈余分配請求權的裁判困境進行了對策性的解讀，提出法官處理此類案件應具備的審判思路。
[Abstract]:The main purpose of shareholders' investment in the company is to obtain the return on investment. The company law of all countries clearly stipulates that the shareholders have the right to obtain the return on assets from the company. However, because the interests of the company's participants are not consistent, it leads to frequent disputes about the shareholders' claim for surplus distribution in judicial practice. The stipulation of this right in the Company Law of our country is still in a relatively principled stage. The understanding and application of the courts at all levels have different attitudes, which leads to the disunity of judicial recognition and the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" widely exists. Based on the investigation of the basic theory of shareholders' claim for surplus distribution and the legal rules of main jurisdictions, and combined with the adjudication dilemma in judicial practice, this paper deeply analyzes the nature and level of rights of shareholders' claim for surplus distribution. This paper analyzes the manifestation and deep causes of the obstacles to the exercise of the right. In view of the problem of judicial intervention on the claim right of shareholders' earnings distribution, this paper demonstrates the legitimate basis of judicial intervention from the perspective of corporate contract theory, and combs the viewpoint of disapproval of judicial intervention. At the same time, the author compares and analyzes the typical practice of setting up the extraterritorial system. This paper also focuses on the analysis of the limitation of judicial intervention on shareholders' claim for surplus distribution, and puts forward that the goal of judicial intervention is to restrain agency costs, and the criteria of commercial judgment and reasonable expectation are taken as the boundary between corporate autonomy and judicial intervention. Combined with the current situation of the judiciary, the author puts forward the thinking of the judges to try this kind of cases. In the introduction part, after combing the literature on the issue of "judicial intervention in the claim of shareholders' earnings distribution", this article is divided into six chapters for specific discussion. The first chapter mainly shows the four cases in judicial practice, reflecting the differences in the judicial adjudication of the dispute of shareholders' claim for surplus distribution, and then leads to the legal problems to be studied in this paper. The second chapter discusses the concept and nature of shareholders' right to claim for the distribution of earnings, and divides the right into abstract and abstract. Specific two levels of rights, and explain the shareholders of the exercise of earnings distribution claim basis. Chapter III demonstrates the causes of the obstacles to the exercise of shareholders' claim for the distribution of earnings, and discusses the causes of the obstacles in different forms of expression Type analysis of exercise disorder. The fourth chapter discusses the legitimacy of judicial intervention in the claim of shareholders' earnings distribution from the perspective of company contract, and analyzes the different viewpoints of academic circles. At the same time, from the perspective of comparative law, it combs the relevant legislation and judicial status of Anglo-American countries. Reason, explore among them to our country draw lessons from and enlighten. The fifth chapter starts with the relationship between corporate autonomy and judicial intervention, and points out that the goal of judicial intervention is to restrain the agency cost of the company, and its boundary should be based on the criterion of commercial judgment and the standard of reasonable expectation. To determine. The sixth chapter, based on the above argument, interprets the judgment dilemma of the judicial intervention in the shareholders' earnings distribution claim, and puts forward the judicial thinking that the judge should have to deal with this kind of cases.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 趙洲;公司股利分配的規(guī)制研究[J];安徽工業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2005年01期

2 羅培新;;填補公司合同“縫隙”——司法介入公司運作的一個分析框架[J];北京大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年01期

3 李建偉;茅院生;;有限公司強制分配股利之訴的法理基礎[J];當代法學;2010年02期

4 葉林;;商法理念與商事審判[J];法律適用;2007年09期

5 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];法學家;2006年06期

6 葉閣澤;;公司股東股利分配請求權之解析[J];福建論壇(人文社會科學版);2012年08期

7 常健;張強;;商業(yè)判斷規(guī)則:發(fā)展趨勢、適用限制及完善——以有限責任公司股利分配為視角[J];法商研究;2013年03期

8 申衛(wèi)星;;期待權研究導論[J];清華法學;2002年00期

9 傅穹;公司利潤分配規(guī)則的比較分析[J];法學論壇;2004年03期

10 馬明生,張學武;資本多數(shù)決的限制與小股東權益保護[J];法學論壇;2005年04期

本文編號：1958674