本文選題：有限責(zé)任公司　切入點(diǎn)：股東　出處：《貴州大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文通過2013年北京市一中院二審審結(jié)的“上訴人劉某某與被上訴人北京市新路運(yùn)輸有限公司請(qǐng)求公司收購股份糾紛一案”的判決說明了當(dāng)前研究有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)仍具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義,從而引出論題《有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)法律問題研究》。本文除引言和結(jié)語外,共分為四個(gè)部分。第一部分,筆者首先通過對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外關(guān)于退股權(quán)含義的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行總結(jié),提出了自己對(duì)于退股權(quán)的定義。之后將退股權(quán)與相近概念進(jìn)行比較,使退股權(quán)含義更加明晰。之后,對(duì)有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)的理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了敘述。第一部分為全文的理論基礎(chǔ)。第二部分,通過對(duì)大陸法系國(guó)家代表德國(guó)有限公司股東退股權(quán)和英美法系國(guó)家代表美國(guó)封閉公司的股東退股權(quán)在主體、適用條件、程序等方面的總結(jié)、對(duì)比,得出德國(guó)在退股權(quán)的權(quán)利主體和適用條件上規(guī)定的比較完善,而美國(guó)在退股權(quán)的行使程序和估價(jià)規(guī)則上規(guī)定的比較詳備。進(jìn)而可知,我國(guó)的有限公司股東退股權(quán)可在實(shí)體規(guī)則方面借鑒德國(guó)規(guī)定,在程序方面借鑒美國(guó)規(guī)定。第三部分,筆者通過對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)制度進(jìn)行總結(jié),詳細(xì)的指出了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行制度存在制度不成體系、權(quán)利主體范圍過窄、適用范圍過于局限等不足,從而使第四部分提出完善建議有了相對(duì)性。第四部分,針對(duì)我國(guó)有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)制度存在的不足,在借鑒德美兩國(guó)相關(guān)制度的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者從基本原則、實(shí)體規(guī)則、程序規(guī)則三方面對(duì)我國(guó)有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)制度提出了詳盡的完善建議,這部分也是本文的重中之重和亮點(diǎn)部分。結(jié)語部分,筆者對(duì)全文進(jìn)行了梳理、總結(jié),重申了本文的觀點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:Through the judgment of "appellant Liu Xi-mou and appellee Beijing New Road Transportation Co., Ltd., requesting the company to buy shares", which was concluded in the second instance of the first Middle Court of Beijing in 2013, this article explains the current research limited liability company stock. Eastward withdrawal of equity is still of practical significance. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts. The first part, the author summarizes the domestic and foreign views on the meaning of withdrawal. The author puts forward his own definition of withdrawing equity, and compares the withdrawal of equity with similar concepts to make the meaning of withdrawal more clear. This paper describes the theoretical basis of shareholders' withdrawal of equity in a limited liability company. The first part is the theoretical basis of the full text. The second part, Through the summary of the withdrawal of shareholders' equity in the continental law countries on behalf of the German limited company and the withdrawal of the shareholders of the Anglo-American law system countries on behalf of the closed companies in the United States in the aspects of subject, applicable conditions, procedures, and so on, a comparison is made. The conclusion is that Germany has perfect provisions on the subject of the right and the applicable conditions, while the United States has more detailed provisions on the procedure for the exercise of the withdrawal of shares and the rules of valuation. In the third part, the author summarizes the current shareholder withdrawal system of limited liability company in our country, which can be used for reference in the substantive rules of Germany and the United States in the aspect of procedure. It points out in detail that the current system of our country is not systematic, the scope of the subject of right is too narrow, the scope of application is too limited, and so on. In view of the deficiency of shareholder withdrawal system of limited liability company in our country, on the basis of drawing lessons from the relevant systems of Germany and the United States, the author from the basic principles, substantive rules, Three aspects of the procedural rules of China's limited liability company shareholders to withdraw equity system made detailed suggestions, this part is also the most important and highlight part of this article. Conclusion part, the author of the full text is combed, summarized, The point of view of this paper is reiterated.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：貴州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王麗麗;;論股東退股權(quán)[J];科學(xué)之友(B版);2008年04期

2 李昆吾;;淺議有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)的立論依據(jù)[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2011年08期

3 崔越;王志生;;有限責(zé)任公司股東的退股權(quán)及相關(guān)制度的構(gòu)建[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2006年17期

4 閆可可;;論有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)的正當(dāng)性[J];許昌學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年06期

5 張玉玲;;淺議有限公司股東的退股權(quán)——對(duì)《公司法》第75條的完善[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2011年07期

6 董帝鑾;;論有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)制度——兼評(píng)《公司法》第七十五條[J];重慶三峽學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

7 甘培忠;論有限責(zé)任公司股東的退股權(quán)[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2002年05期

8 孫聚團(tuán);淺議有限責(zé)任公司股東的退股權(quán)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2004年06期

9 孔晶明;;對(duì)有限公司股東退股權(quán)制度的再認(rèn)識(shí)——從公司本質(zhì)的角度探討[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2010年12期

10 江平;現(xiàn)階段企業(yè)的法律環(huán)境[J];建設(shè)機(jī)械技術(shù)與管理;2005年10期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 宋京華;;我國(guó)有限責(zé)任公司股東退股權(quán)的問題研究[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2011年第2輯）[C];2011年

2 張海e，

本文編號(hào)：1680634