本文選題：隱名投資合同　切入點：發(fā)起人協(xié)議　出處：《湖南大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著股東資格確認糾紛的增多,公司股東資格的具體認定己成為日益關(guān)注的問題。雖然《公司法解釋(三)》為股東資格確認提供了指導,隱名投資合同和實際出資人在法律上也被提出,但是在具體內(nèi)容和認定上還沒有詳細規(guī)定,對公司股東資格認定也沒有建立確定的標準。因此,對其具體認定進行探討對理論和實務都具有重要的意義。關(guān)于股東出資,是股東必須履行的法定和約定義務,在實踐中,股東之間約定出資利息,有可能是股東約定的利潤分配方式,或者是股東的抽逃出資行為,因而對此約定的效力性認定是值得深入探討的�！冻鹪赐蓶|資格確認案》是一個由《入股協(xié)議書》引發(fā)的關(guān)于股東資格確認糾紛、股東主張投資利息的案例,歷時三年之久,涉及到公司法理論的多項內(nèi)容。爭議焦點圍繞投資者之間簽訂的協(xié)議性質(zhì),公司股東資格取得與否,股東主張投資利息三方面而展開。為解決上述爭議,故根據(jù)現(xiàn)有公司法理論和法律規(guī)定對上述三個問題進行分析:其一是公司《入股協(xié)議書》的性質(zhì)。隱名投資合同是由實際出資人與名義股東訂立的,約定由實際出資人以名義股東名義向公司出資,由實際出資人享有投資權(quán)益的合同。而發(fā)起人協(xié)議是發(fā)起人在公司設立過程中,訂立的關(guān)于公司設立事項的協(xié)議,是發(fā)起人以設立公司為目標的共同行為。在實踐中應從兩者的內(nèi)容和特征上去分析;其二是股東資格認定。在實踐中,實際出資人與原始股東股東資格應該如何認定?實際出資人應該從主觀隱名投資合意、實際出資、有無被登記以及投資權(quán)益歸屬四個方面認定。原始股東資格應從內(nèi)外部法律關(guān)系區(qū)別對待,公司內(nèi)部認定以實質(zhì)要件為主,外部糾紛以形式要件為主;其三是股東之間約定投資利息的有效性。我國公司法尊重股東意思自治,但是約定的內(nèi)容若違反我國法律規(guī)定,應是無效的。希望通過以上探討為我國以后相關(guān)立法活動和司法實踐中相似案例的解決提供參考。
[Abstract]:With the increase of disputes over the confirmation of shareholders' qualifications, more and more attention has been paid to the specific identification of shareholders' qualifications. Although the Company Law explanation (3) provides guidance for the confirmation of shareholders' qualifications, Anonymous investment contracts and actual investors have also been proposed in the law, but in the specific content and identification has not been specified in detail, the qualification of shareholders of the company has not established a defined standard. It is of great significance both in theory and in practice to discuss its specific determination. As for shareholders' contribution, it is the legal and contractual obligation that shareholders must perform. In practice, the shareholders agree on the interest of capital contribution. It may be the way of distribution of profits agreed upon by the shareholders, or the behavior of the shareholders in withdrawing their capital contribution, Therefore, the validity determination of this agreement is worthy of further discussion. The "Qiu Yuanwang shareholder qualification confirmation case" is a case of shareholders' qualification confirmation dispute caused by the "Agreement on the acquisition of shares," in which shareholders advocate for investment interest, which lasted for three years. The controversy focuses on the nature of the agreement signed between investors, whether the shareholder qualification of the company is obtained or not, and the shareholder's claim on investment interest. Therefore, according to the existing company law theory and legal provisions, the above three problems are analyzed: first, the nature of the company's "agreement on share acquisition". The anonymous investment contract is concluded by the actual investor and the nominal shareholders. A contract whereby the actual investor shall contribute capital to the company in the name of the nominal shareholder, and the actual investor shall enjoy the investment rights and interests. The promoters' agreement is the agreement on the matters concerning the establishment of the company concluded by the promoter in the course of the establishment of the company, It is the common behavior of the promoters aiming at the establishment of the company. In practice, it should be analyzed from the content and characteristics of both, and the second is the qualification of shareholders. In practice, how should the actual investors and the original shareholders be recognized? The actual investor should be determined from four aspects: subjective anonymous investment agreement, actual capital contribution, whether there is registration and ownership of investment rights and interests. The original shareholder qualification should be treated differently from the internal and external legal relations. External disputes are mainly formal elements; third, the validity of agreed interest on investment among shareholders. Our company law respects shareholder autonomy, but if the content of the agreement violates the laws and regulations of our country, It is hoped that the above discussion can be used as a reference for solving similar cases in relevant legislative activities and judicial practice in China.
【學位授予單位】：湖南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 雷金牛;李曉歐;;論隱名投資合同的效力要件[J];北京工商大學學報(社會科學版);2014年04期

2 王榮;吳碧虹;;有限責任公司隱名股東資格認定問題探析[J];凈月學刊;2014年01期

3 周明利;林友江;;論股東抽逃出資的民事責任[J];法制與社會;2013年02期

4 楊舒文;袁杰;;發(fā)起人協(xié)議效力研究[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2009年02期

5 王成勇,陳廣秀;隱名股東之資格認定若干問題探析[J];法律適用;2004年07期

6 ;有限責任公司股東資格的認定[J];法律適用(國家法官學院學報);2002年12期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前3條

1 王欣;論抽逃出資的認定與民事責任[D];吉林大學;2014年

2 裴鵬鵬;隱名股東的法律問題研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年

3 王秀杰;股東抽逃出資的民事責任探析[D];湖南大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1659070