【摘要】：與1993年《公司法》相比，現(xiàn)行《公司法》有不少變化，其中最大的變化當屬賦予了公司更大的自治權(quán)；而公司自治權(quán)的擴大，主要是通過設(shè)置諸如“公司章程另有規(guī)定的除外”（以下簡稱公司章程“另有規(guī)定”）之類的條款來實現(xiàn)的。現(xiàn)行《公司法》通過認可公司章程“另有規(guī)定”的形式，排除了原本應(yīng)予適用的一些《公司法》條款；這樣，作為市場主體的公司就可以在法律允許的范圍內(nèi)，根據(jù)自身的實際情況在公司章程中對公司內(nèi)部事務(wù)作出事先安排，由此貫徹當事人意思自治的原則。然而，在公司實務(wù)中，因公司章程“另有規(guī)定”而經(jīng)常引起糾紛；由于當事人的意思自治不能被推向極端，因而對這方面的糾紛，顯然又不能簡單地完全按照公司章程“另有規(guī)定”進行認定和處理。 本文的主旨，即在于探究公司章程“另有規(guī)定”的司法裁判困境及其出路。全文除引言和結(jié)語外，分為五個部分。 第一部分的目的在于提出本文研究的問題。本部分通過分析發(fā)現(xiàn)：現(xiàn)行《公司法》迎合時代需求，以認可公司章程“另有規(guī)定”的形式賦予了公司較大的自治權(quán)，但是，因相關(guān)理論的不完備及立法的不完善，法院在處理由公司章程“另有規(guī)定”而引起的糾紛中極易陷入困境。 第二部分討論了公司章程的性質(zhì)；在此基礎(chǔ)上論述了公司章程“另有規(guī)定”與《公司法》的關(guān)系。在理論界，關(guān)于公司章程性質(zhì)的認識不一，存在“自治法說”、“契約說”等觀點。本部分在評價這兩種觀點的基礎(chǔ)上，對公司章程的性質(zhì)作了揭示，認為公司章程兼具自治法和契約的屬性。公司章程“另有規(guī)定”獲致《公司法》的認同，從表面上看使得《公司法》與公司章程間的矛盾加劇，但事實上卻使兩者的關(guān)系更為密切。如何正確處理二者關(guān)系，關(guān)系到法院對公司章程“另有規(guī)定”糾紛的審理。 第三部分探討的是公司章程“另有規(guī)定”致司法裁判陷入困境的表現(xiàn)。在分析“周巖訴豐鹿公司案”的基礎(chǔ)上，歸納出這方面的困境主要由初始章程與后續(xù)章程理論基礎(chǔ)不一致、初始章程與后續(xù)章程在銜接上存在立法缺失、公司章程與《公司法》難以協(xié)調(diào)等導(dǎo)致。 第四部分研究的是法院審理公司章程“另有規(guī)定”類案件中應(yīng)遵循的原則。針對公司章程“另有規(guī)定”類案件具有復(fù)雜性的特點，結(jié)合現(xiàn)行《公司法》之立法精神，本部分提出，法院在審理此類案件時，應(yīng)遵循尊重公司自治、寬緩與靈活相結(jié)合、追求實質(zhì)正義等原則。 第五部分涉及的是司法介入公司章程“另有規(guī)定”的制度建設(shè)問題。本部分認為：為盡可能預(yù)防因公司章程“另有規(guī)定”而引起的糾紛，可考慮由相關(guān)部門提供公司章程指引意見；為準確認定和處理公司章程“另有規(guī)定”案件，可考慮建立案例指導(dǎo)制度、引入經(jīng)營判斷規(guī)則等。
[Abstract]:Compared with the 1993 Company Law, there have been many changes in the present Company Law, the biggest of which is the granting of greater autonomy to the company, and the expansion of the autonomy of the company. This is mainly achieved by setting such provisions as "except as otherwise provided in the articles of Association" (hereinafter referred to as "articles of Association"). The current Company Law excludes some of the provisions of the Company Law that should be applied by recognizing the form of "otherwise provided for in the articles of Association of the Company," so that the company, as the main body of the market, can, to the extent permitted by law, According to the actual situation of the company, the internal affairs of the company are arranged beforehand in the articles of association, so as to implement the principle of party autonomy. However, in the practice of a company, disputes often arise because the articles of association "provide otherwise"; because the autonomy of the parties can not be pushed to the extreme, disputes in this respect arise. Obviously, we can not simply confirm and deal with the articles of association in accordance with the articles of association. The purpose of this paper is to explore the dilemma and outlet of the company's articles of association. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into five parts. The purpose of the first part is to put forward the problems studied in this paper. This part finds that the current Company Law caters to the needs of the times and gives the company greater autonomy in the form of recognizing the articles of association. However, due to the imperfection of relevant theories and legislation, The court is easy to get into trouble in dealing with disputes caused by the articles of association. The second part discusses the nature of the articles of association, and then discusses the relationship between the articles of association and the Company Law. In the theoretical circle, there are different views on the nature of the articles of association, such as "autonomy law" and "contract theory". Based on the evaluation of these two viewpoints, this part reveals the nature of the articles of association and holds that the articles of association have the attributes of autonomy law and contract. The articles of association "other provisions" have been approved by the Company Law, which on the surface intensifies the contradiction between the Company Law and the articles of Association, but in fact makes the relationship between the two more closely. How to correctly deal with the relationship between the two is related to the court's hearing of the dispute about the articles of association. The third part discusses the performance of the company's articles of association. Based on the analysis of the case of Zhou Yan v. Fenglu Company, it is concluded that the difficulties in this respect are mainly caused by the inconsistency of the theoretical basis of the initial articles of Association and the subsequent articles of Association, and the lack of legislation in the connection between the initial articles of Association and the subsequent articles of Association. The articles of association and the Company Law are difficult to coordinate and so on. The fourth part deals with the principles that should be followed in the trial of the company's articles of association. In view of the complexity of the cases of "other provisions" in the articles of Association, and in the light of the legislative spirit of the current Company Law, this part puts forward that the court should follow the principle of respecting the autonomy of the company and combining leniency and flexibility in the trial of such cases. The pursuit of substantive justice and other principles. The fifth part deals with the system construction of judicial intervention in the articles of association. This part holds that: in order to prevent as far as possible disputes arising from "otherwise stipulated" articles of association, the relevant departments may consider providing guidance advice on the articles of association, and in order to accurately identify and deal with cases of "otherwise stipulated" articles of association, Consideration can be given to the establishment of case guidance systems and the introduction of business judgment rules.
【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】：2013
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 呂忠梅,鄢斌;論經(jīng)濟法的程序理性[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年01期

2 劉作翔;;我國為什么要實行案例指導(dǎo)制度[J];法律適用;2006年08期

3 錢玉林;;作為裁判法源的公司章程:立法表達與司法實踐[J];法商研究;2011年01期

4 羅澤勝;;新《公司法》對股東與公司自治的擴張與限制[J];法學(xué)家;2006年04期

5 常健;;論公司章程的功能及其發(fā)展趨勢[J];法學(xué)家;2011年02期

6 劉迎霜;;股東對董事訴訟中的商業(yè)判斷規(guī)則[J];法學(xué);2009年05期

7 王保樹;;從法條的公司法到實踐的公司法[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年06期

8 錢玉林;;公司章程“另有規(guī)定”檢討[J];法學(xué)研究;2009年02期

9 趙忠奎;;公司章程“另有規(guī)定”與司法裁定的適用[J];經(jīng)濟法論壇;2013年00期

10 肖揚;;充分發(fā)揮司法調(diào)解在構(gòu)建社會主義和諧社會中的積極作用[J];求是;2006年19期

，

本文編號：2191747