本文選題：股東代表訴訟 + 費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償�。� 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2005年我國(guó)正式將股東代表訴訟制度寫(xiě)進(jìn)《公司法》。立法上的不斷完善、公司治理制度的日漸成熟在一定程度上使得該制度保護(hù)了公司和股東的利益。但由于立法過(guò)于原則化甚至缺失、股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用收取未有特殊規(guī)定等原因,為股東量身定做的保護(hù)措施變得形同虛設(shè)。股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償實(shí)際上是轉(zhuǎn)移因訴訟發(fā)生的費(fèi)用。即只有將代表訴訟的訴訟成本轉(zhuǎn)移到公司身上,訴訟才有被提起的可能。股東代表訴訟設(shè)計(jì)的目的之一是防止濫訴,在股東代表訴訟的實(shí)踐中公司少有對(duì)股東進(jìn)行費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償或許出于抑制股東趁機(jī)謀取私利的考慮,但通過(guò)法院司法許可制度鼓勵(lì)正當(dāng)訴訟,剔除無(wú)益訴訟,公司對(duì)股東給予費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償才具有正當(dāng)性。本文共分為四個(gè)部分。第一部分是股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)母攀�。通過(guò)介紹股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)母拍詈凸緦?duì)股東費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)姆ɡ砘A(chǔ),為公司對(duì)股東進(jìn)行費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償尤其是為公司對(duì)敗訴股東承擔(dān)費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)牧x務(wù)提供理論依據(jù)。第二部分是國(guó)外股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償制度的立法評(píng)析。國(guó)外的股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償制度,特別是在費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)姆秶头ㄔ涸S可制度的設(shè)置上值得我們借鑒。第三部分是我國(guó)股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償制度存在的問(wèn)題。我國(guó)立法對(duì)費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)、范圍等問(wèn)題未作相關(guān)規(guī)定,實(shí)踐中我國(guó)法院對(duì)此類案件的收費(fèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)多以財(cái)產(chǎn)類案件為依據(jù),加之股東代表訴訟前置程序過(guò)于原則,法院在此類案件上司法控制不足,使得股東獲得費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償缺乏正當(dāng)性且補(bǔ)償可能性較小,股東訴訟的成本與收入嚴(yán)重不平衡。第四部分是針對(duì)我國(guó)股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償存在的問(wèn)題提出的建議。針對(duì)股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償制度存在的問(wèn)題,建議建立特殊的案件受理費(fèi)制度,減輕提訴股東的訴訟成本;對(duì)我國(guó)股東代表訴訟案件加強(qiáng)司法控制;對(duì)于《公司法》和司法解釋中涉及的關(guān)于費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)囊?guī)定,本文提出細(xì)化股東代表訴訟費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償?shù)拇胧?為完善法律規(guī)定提出可操作性的建議。
[Abstract]:In 2005, our country formally wrote the shareholder representative litigation system into the Company Law. With the continuous improvement of legislation and the maturation of corporate governance system, the system protects the interests of the company and shareholders to a certain extent. However, due to the fact that the legislation is too principled or even lacking, and there are no special provisions for the collection of litigation fees for shareholders, the protection measures tailored for shareholders become virtually empty. The compensation of shareholder's representative litigation expenses is in fact the transfer of costs incurred as a result of litigation. That is, only the cost of litigation on behalf of the transfer to the company, litigation is possible to be brought. One of the purposes of shareholder representative litigation design is to prevent excessive litigation. In the practice of shareholder representative litigation, the company rarely compensates shareholders for expenses, which may be due to the consideration of restraining shareholders from taking advantage of the opportunity to pursue their own interests. But through the judicial permission system of the court to encourage the proper litigation and eliminate the unhelpful litigation, it is legitimate for the company to compensate the shareholders for the expenses. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part is the summary of the compensation of shareholder representative litigation costs. By introducing the concept of shareholder's representative litigation cost compensation and the legal basis of company's compensation to shareholders' expenses, this paper provides a theoretical basis for the company to compensate shareholders' expenses, especially for the company's obligation to bear the cost compensation to the losing shareholders. The second part is the legislative evaluation of the compensation system of shareholder's representative litigation costs abroad. The compensation system of shareholder representative litigation costs abroad, especially in the scope of cost compensation and the establishment of court license system, is worthy of our reference. The third part is the problems existing in the compensation system of shareholder representative litigation costs in our country. There is no relevant regulation on the standard and scope of cost compensation in our country's legislation. In practice, the standard of charging for this kind of cases is based on property cases, and the pre-procedure of shareholder representative litigation is too principle. The lack of judicial control in such cases makes shareholders' compensation for expenses lack of legitimacy and the possibility of compensation is relatively small. The cost and income of shareholder litigation are seriously unbalanced. The fourth part is aimed at the problems existing in the compensation of shareholder representative litigation costs in China. In view of the problems existing in the compensation system of shareholder's representative litigation expenses, it is suggested to establish a special system of accepting fees in order to reduce the litigation costs of the shareholders, to strengthen judicial control over the shareholder's representative litigation cases in our country. With regard to the provisions on compensation of costs involved in Company Law and judicial interpretation, this paper puts forward some measures to refine the compensation of litigation expenses for shareholders' representatives, and puts forward some operable suggestions for perfecting the legal provisions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙子琪;;股東代表訴訟中的費(fèi)用激勵(lì)問(wèn)題探究[J];山西省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年03期

2 王丹;;派生訴訟資金激勵(lì)問(wèn)題研究[J];比較法研究;2015年05期

3 黃輝;;中國(guó)股東派生訴訟制度:實(shí)證研究及完善建議[J];人大法律評(píng)論;2014年01期

4 胡宜奎;;論股東代表訴訟中的費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償[J];政治與法律;2014年02期

5 耿利航;;論我國(guó)股東派生訴訟的成本承擔(dān)和司法許可[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2013年01期

6 李領(lǐng)臣;趙勇;;論股東代表訴訟的和解——以對(duì)公司和其他股東之效力為中心[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2010年02期

7 高旭軍;;股東代表訴訟的應(yīng)用探究——論《公司法》第150條和第152條[J];東方法學(xué);2008年06期

8 劉凱湘;;股東代表訴訟的司法適用與立法完善——以《公司法》第152條的解釋為中心[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2008年04期

9 胡曉靜;;德國(guó)股東派生訴訟制度評(píng)析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年02期

10 蔡元慶;;股東代表訴訟中公司的地位和作用 以美國(guó)特別訴訟委員會(huì)制度為中心[J];中外法學(xué);2006年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 胡宜奎;股東代表訴訟中的公司參加問(wèn)題研究[D];南京大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1989613