有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制規(guī)則研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-05-31 15:25
【摘要】：有限責(zé)任公司是我國重要的商事組織之一。它是德國立法的創(chuàng)造,是為滿足中小企業(yè)需求而專門設(shè)置的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范較少,允許章程自治較多的公司形式。它一般具有以下特點(diǎn):股東人數(shù)較少,股東之間聯(lián)系較為緊密,股東多參與管理等。正因其存在這些特點(diǎn),立法才會(huì)限制有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓,這也正是本文選題討論的意義所在。 本文分為引言、正文、結(jié)論三部分。其中正文部分共分為四章,其結(jié)構(gòu)如下: 第一章,因“股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制”并不是法學(xué)上的基本概念,其基本概念是股權(quán)、股權(quán)變動(dòng)及買賣契約等。因而本文以限制與這幾個(gè)基本概念的相關(guān)性引出論文,試圖闡述什么是股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制,股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制與股權(quán)變動(dòng)以及股權(quán)買賣合同有何種聯(lián)系,并得出以下結(jié)論:股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓會(huì)產(chǎn)生新股東,因股權(quán)兼具身份性和資本性,新股東的加入一般需要得到公司同意,股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制與股權(quán)特點(diǎn)密不可分;由于股權(quán)的權(quán)能一般不能單獨(dú)讓與,所以轉(zhuǎn)讓限制需要限制股權(quán)的可轉(zhuǎn)讓性,而對(duì)股權(quán)可轉(zhuǎn)讓性的限制在不同的權(quán)利變動(dòng)模式下法律效果存在差異。在此基礎(chǔ)上討論立法制定限制規(guī)則的利益考量。因限制是對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)讓自由原則的突破,立法必然是出于保護(hù)特定利益的考量。在股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制中有三種利益需要平衡——公司利益、剩余股東利益以及出讓股東利益,在此三種利益不一致時(shí),立法需要作出取舍。后文中對(duì)于大陸法系其他國家限制規(guī)則采用的模式以及法律效果的討論正是立足于以上兩部分結(jié)論進(jìn)行。 第二章,從比較法角度對(duì)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓限制規(guī)則采用的模式以及法律效果進(jìn)行分析。主要選取比較大陸法系德、日、法、瑞士等國立法。其原因首先是我國民法遵循大陸法系民法傳統(tǒng),股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓涉及民法適用;其次,上述國家立法代表不同權(quán)利變動(dòng)模式,日本雖是意思主義變動(dòng)模式,但其對(duì)意思主義有所修正,在不同權(quán)利變動(dòng)模式下,限制的法律效果各異。另外,雖然上述國家都采取了轉(zhuǎn)讓須經(jīng)公司同意模式,但由于我國《公司法》上有優(yōu)先購買權(quán)的適用,所以對(duì)其相關(guān)規(guī)定也作討論,并從利益取舍的角度對(duì)兩種模式比較。 第三章,對(duì)我國《公司法》限制規(guī)則具體分析。在限制模式上我國采取須經(jīng)同意模式加優(yōu)先購買權(quán)模式,與我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)“公司法”最接近,本章一同討論。分析我國規(guī)則也是遵循著限制模式上的利益取舍以及限制規(guī)則法律效果的路徑,認(rèn)為我國在限制模式上出于兼顧三種利益的考量后不得不犧牲效率,且三種利益并沒有得到很好實(shí)現(xiàn),同時(shí)由于立法沒有規(guī)定法律效果,學(xué)界爭議也頗多。綜合我國立法以上特點(diǎn),本文認(rèn)為限制規(guī)則只能在三種利益中作出取舍,其法律效果主要是影響權(quán)利變動(dòng),對(duì)股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓合同不宜產(chǎn)生直接影響。 第四章,試圖提出完善建議。由于股權(quán)外部轉(zhuǎn)讓限制模式本身存在多樣化選擇,所以本文作出開放性結(jié)論。從上述三種利益的平衡角度,本文認(rèn)為同意條款與優(yōu)先購買權(quán)是兩可的選擇,立法擇其一完善即可,轉(zhuǎn)讓限制規(guī)則宜僅影響股權(quán)變動(dòng)。在限制規(guī)則制定上《公司法》應(yīng)當(dāng)以效率優(yōu)先,明確權(quán)利義務(wù)內(nèi)容,以促使股權(quán)法律關(guān)系盡快穩(wěn)定。
[Abstract]:The limited liability company is one of the most important commercial organizations in our country. It is the creation of German legislation, which is a special set of mandatory norms to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, and allows the articles of association to be in the form of more companies. It generally has the following characteristics: the number of shareholders is small, the contact between the shareholders is relatively close, and the shareholders' multi-participation management and the like. Because of these characteristics, the legislation will restrict the transfer of the limited liability of the limited liability company, which is the meaning of the discussion in this paper. This paper is divided into the introduction, the text and the conclusion. The text is divided into four chapters, and its structure The following is the first chapter, because the "Restrictions on the external transfer of equity" is not the basic concept in the law, its basic concept is the equity, the change of the stock right, and In this paper, the author tries to explain what is the limitation of the external transfer of the equity, the limitation of the external transfer of the stock, the change of the equity and the relationship between the equity and the sales contract, and the following conclusions are drawn: the external transfer of the equity To generate new shareholders, because the equity has both identity and capital, the addition of new shareholders generally needs to be agreed by the company, and the limitation of the external transfer of the equity is closely related to the characteristics of the equity. As the power of the equity is generally not allowed to be alone, the transfer restriction needs to limit the equity The transferability of the equity, and the restriction of the transferability of the equity in different rights. There is a difference in the fruit. On the basis of this, the paper discusses the limitation of legislation. The limitation is the breakthrough of the principle of the transfer of freedom, and the legislation must be for the protection of the specific The consideration of the interests. There are three interests in the limitation of the external transfer of the equity. The interests of the company, the interests of the remaining shareholders and the interests of the transfer shareholders, when the three interests are inconsistent, the legislation needs to be To make a trade-off, the model and the legal effect of the other countries' restriction rules in the civil law system are based on the above two. The second chapter, from the comparative law angle, applies the model of the restriction rule of the equity transfer. The legal effect is analyzed. The main choice is to compare the civil law system Germany and the day, The reason for this is that the civil law of our country follows the civil law tradition of the continental law system, the transfer of the stock right involves the application of the civil law; secondly, the above-mentioned national legislation represents the change pattern of the different rights, while Japan is the means of the change of the meaning, but it has been amended to the meaning, and in no way in that same mode of change, the limit The legal effect of the system is different. In addition, while the above-mentioned countries have adopted the mode of consent of the Company, the relevant provisions of the Company are also discussed and the angle of the trade-off is also discussed in view of the application of the preemptive right in the Company Law of our country. The third chapter is to compare the two modes. The article makes a concrete analysis of the rules of the administration of justice. In the restricted mode, our country adopts the mode of pre-emption of the consent mode and the "Company Law" The most approach is discussed in this chapter. The analysis of our country's rules is also the path that follows the trade-off of the restrictive model and the legal effect of the restriction rules. The benefits are not well achieved, and as the legislation does not provide for law The author thinks that the restriction rules can only make the trade-off in the three interests, and the legal effect is mainly the influence of the change of the right and the external rotation of the stock right. It is not appropriate for the contract to have a direct impact. In the fourth chapter, we try to put forward and perfect the suggestion, because the limited mode of the external transfer of the stock rights itself is diversified Therefore, this paper makes an open conclusion. From the balance angle of the three interests, this paper holds that the consent terms and the pre-emption right are two kinds of choices, and the legislative choice is perfect. The transfer restriction rules should only affect the change of the equity. In the formulation of the restriction rules, the Company Law should give priority to the efficiency and clarify the content of the rights and obligations.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91
本文編號(hào)：2489808
[Abstract]:The limited liability company is one of the most important commercial organizations in our country. It is the creation of German legislation, which is a special set of mandatory norms to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, and allows the articles of association to be in the form of more companies. It generally has the following characteristics: the number of shareholders is small, the contact between the shareholders is relatively close, and the shareholders' multi-participation management and the like. Because of these characteristics, the legislation will restrict the transfer of the limited liability of the limited liability company, which is the meaning of the discussion in this paper. This paper is divided into the introduction, the text and the conclusion. The text is divided into four chapters, and its structure The following is the first chapter, because the "Restrictions on the external transfer of equity" is not the basic concept in the law, its basic concept is the equity, the change of the stock right, and In this paper, the author tries to explain what is the limitation of the external transfer of the equity, the limitation of the external transfer of the stock, the change of the equity and the relationship between the equity and the sales contract, and the following conclusions are drawn: the external transfer of the equity To generate new shareholders, because the equity has both identity and capital, the addition of new shareholders generally needs to be agreed by the company, and the limitation of the external transfer of the equity is closely related to the characteristics of the equity. As the power of the equity is generally not allowed to be alone, the transfer restriction needs to limit the equity The transferability of the equity, and the restriction of the transferability of the equity in different rights. There is a difference in the fruit. On the basis of this, the paper discusses the limitation of legislation. The limitation is the breakthrough of the principle of the transfer of freedom, and the legislation must be for the protection of the specific The consideration of the interests. There are three interests in the limitation of the external transfer of the equity. The interests of the company, the interests of the remaining shareholders and the interests of the transfer shareholders, when the three interests are inconsistent, the legislation needs to be To make a trade-off, the model and the legal effect of the other countries' restriction rules in the civil law system are based on the above two. The second chapter, from the comparative law angle, applies the model of the restriction rule of the equity transfer. The legal effect is analyzed. The main choice is to compare the civil law system Germany and the day, The reason for this is that the civil law of our country follows the civil law tradition of the continental law system, the transfer of the stock right involves the application of the civil law; secondly, the above-mentioned national legislation represents the change pattern of the different rights, while Japan is the means of the change of the meaning, but it has been amended to the meaning, and in no way in that same mode of change, the limit The legal effect of the system is different. In addition, while the above-mentioned countries have adopted the mode of consent of the Company, the relevant provisions of the Company are also discussed and the angle of the trade-off is also discussed in view of the application of the preemptive right in the Company Law of our country. The third chapter is to compare the two modes. The article makes a concrete analysis of the rules of the administration of justice. In the restricted mode, our country adopts the mode of pre-emption of the consent mode and the "Company Law" The most approach is discussed in this chapter. The analysis of our country's rules is also the path that follows the trade-off of the restrictive model and the legal effect of the restriction rules. The benefits are not well achieved, and as the legislation does not provide for law The author thinks that the restriction rules can only make the trade-off in the three interests, and the legal effect is mainly the influence of the change of the right and the external rotation of the stock right. It is not appropriate for the contract to have a direct impact. In the fourth chapter, we try to put forward and perfect the suggestion, because the limited mode of the external transfer of the stock rights itself is diversified Therefore, this paper makes an open conclusion. From the balance angle of the three interests, this paper holds that the consent terms and the pre-emption right are two kinds of choices, and the legislative choice is perfect. The transfer restriction rules should only affect the change of the equity. In the formulation of the restriction rules, the Company Law should give priority to the efficiency and clarify the content of the rights and obligations.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(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10條
1 丁春艷;;論私法中的優(yōu)先購買權(quán)[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2005年01期
2 李少華;法定優(yōu)先購買權(quán)的法律性質(zhì)、效力及實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年02期
3 鄭艷麗;;論有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力與相關(guān)文件記載的關(guān)系——新公司法視角下的理論與實(shí)踐分析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2009年01期
4 柳經(jīng)緯;;股權(quán)辨析[J];福建法學(xué);1995年Z1期
5 古錫麟;李洪堂;;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干審判實(shí)務(wù)問題[J];法律適用;2007年03期
6 史浩明;論除斥期間[J];法學(xué)雜志;2004年04期
7 劉俊海;;論有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同的效力[J];法學(xué)家;2007年06期
8 張平;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力層次論[J];法學(xué);2003年12期
9 劉閱春;出資轉(zhuǎn)讓之成立與生效[J];法學(xué);2004年03期
10 王艷麗;;對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓制度的再認(rèn)識(shí)——兼評(píng)我國新《公司法》相關(guān)規(guī)定之進(jìn)步與不足[J];法學(xué);2006年11期
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條
1 王欣新 趙芬萍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年
2 中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院法學(xué)所研究員 鄒海林;[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條
1 宋良剛;有限公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年
2 孫有強(qiáng);股權(quán)公示制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2005年
3 伍堅(jiān);章程排除公司法適用：理論與制度分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年
，本文編號(hào)：2489808
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/gongsifalunwen/2489808.html
最近更新
教材專著
