【摘要】：股東盈余分配請求權(quán)是股東重要的權(quán)利之一,從公司獲得利益是股東投資設(shè)立公司最終的目的。2016年4月12日最高人民法院公布了關(guān)于適用《中華人民共和國公司法》若干問題的規(guī)定(四)的征求意見稿,其中第二十條規(guī)定股東請求分配利潤的,應(yīng)當(dāng)提交載明具體分配方案的股東會或者股東大會的決議,否則法院應(yīng)當(dāng)駁回其訴訟請求。問題是當(dāng)股東會或者股東大會作出不分配利潤的決議或者沒有作出有關(guān)分配利潤的決議時,對盈余分配請求權(quán)受到損害的股東如何保護卻沒有規(guī)定。股東盈余分配請求權(quán),是指股東在公司有利潤可分配時,基于其公司股東的資格和地位而享有的請求公司向自己分配利潤的權(quán)利。我國的理論界的通說認(rèn)為其有兩方面的內(nèi)容,即抽象層面和具體層面。抽象層面的盈余分配請求權(quán)是股東基于其股東資格和地位而享有的權(quán)利,只要股東擁有該公司的股東資格和地位就可以請求該公司向其分配紅利。具體層面的盈余分配請求權(quán),是指股東是否有權(quán)請求公司向其分配利潤取決于其是否有股東會或者股東大會作出的盈余分配分配決議。法院往往對抽象的盈余分配請求也就是股東(大)會分配決議缺失時持消極態(tài)度。其理由是要尊重公司自治,抽象盈余分配請求權(quán)性質(zhì)特殊,而且受損股東可以尋求其它的替代性救濟方式。但是法院在尊重公司自治時也要遵守法律的公平正義原則,抽象盈余分配糾紛是有可訴性的,對受損股東權(quán)益保護的最好辦法不是尋求替代措施,而是構(gòu)建強制盈余分配制度。強制盈余分配制度是股東依法要求公司向其分配利潤時,公司以過分提取任意公積金為理由拒絕或者不給任何理由直接拒絕,此時,權(quán)益受到損害的股東請求法院強制公司向其分配利潤的救濟方式。強制盈余分配制度保護的公司類型應(yīng)包括有限責(zé)任公司和非上市股份有限公司。條件是公司有可供分配的利潤,公司不分配利潤無正當(dāng)理由,且受損股東已窮盡內(nèi)部救濟。提起盈余分配訴訟的原告是受損股東,被告是董事、控股股東、公司,按照誰主張誰舉證原則,由原告承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任,如果原告濫用權(quán)利,對公司造成的損失,應(yīng)承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。至于具體應(yīng)判決的盈余分配額,法院可以在專業(yè)機構(gòu)的協(xié)助下,結(jié)合具體案件,在最高盈余分配額和最低盈余分配額之間做出具體數(shù)額的判決。
[Abstract]:The shareholder's right to claim for the distribution of earnings is one of the important rights of shareholders. The ultimate purpose of establishing a company by shareholders is to obtain benefits from the company. On April 12, 2016, the Supreme people's Court published a draft for soliciting opinions on the application of certain issues in the Company Law of the people's Republic of China. Article 20 stipulates that where a shareholder requests a distribution of profits, he shall submit a resolution of the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' general meeting setting out the specific distribution plan, otherwise the court shall reject the application. The problem is that when the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' general meeting makes a resolution on the non-distribution of profits or does not make a resolution on the distribution of profits, there is no provision on how to protect the shareholders whose claim for the distribution of earnings is impaired. The claim right of shareholders' earnings distribution refers to the shareholders' right to ask the company to distribute profits to themselves on the basis of the qualification and status of shareholders when the company has profits to be distributed. The general theory of our country holds that there are two aspects of it, namely, abstract level and concrete level. The claim of earnings distribution in abstract level is the right of shareholders based on the qualification and status of shareholders, so long as the shareholders have the qualification and status of shareholders of the company, they can ask the company to distribute dividends to them. The specific level of claim for earnings distribution refers to whether the shareholders have the right to ask the company to distribute the profits to it depending on whether it has a resolution on the distribution of earnings made by the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' general meeting. Courts tend to take a negative view of abstract earnings allocation requests, that is, shareholder (large) allocation decisions are missing. The reason is to respect corporate autonomy, abstract earnings allocation claim is of a special nature, and damaged shareholders can seek alternative remedies. However, the court should also abide by the principle of fairness and justice when respecting the autonomy of the company. Abstract surplus distribution disputes are actionable. The best way to protect the rights and interests of the injured shareholders is not to seek alternative measures, but to construct a compulsory surplus distribution system. The compulsory surplus distribution system is when shareholders require a company to distribute profits to it according to law, the company refuses to take excessive withdrawal of any provident fund as a reason or refuses to give any reason directly. At this time, The way in which shareholders whose rights and interests have been harmed request the court to force the company to distribute profits to it. The types of companies protected by the compulsory earnings allocation system should include limited liability companies and non-listed companies. The condition is that the company has distributable profits, that the company does not distribute profits without justification, and that the damaged shareholders have exhausted internal remedies. The plaintiff who brings the action for the distribution of surplus is the injured shareholder, the defendant is the director, the controlling shareholder, the company, according to the principle of who proclaims the proof, the plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof. If the plaintiff abuses his right and causes losses to the company, Be liable for compensation. As for the specific amount of surplus allocation to be adjudicated, the court may, with the assistance of a professional institution and in the light of a specific case, make a judgment of a specific amount between the maximum surplus allocation and the minimum surplus allocation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 ;《中華人民共和國農(nóng)民專業(yè)合作社法》問答(五)[J];山西農(nóng)業(yè)(致富科技);2007年09期

2 候天友西南政法大學(xué),張鵬飛;簡談英美法系國家公司法對盈余分配決定權(quán)的規(guī)定[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年03期

3 婁勇;“干部+農(nóng)戶”扶貧有出路[J];中國民政;1995年12期

4 戴芳;合伙人出資:盈余分配及債務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)[J];經(jīng)濟改革;1998年05期

5 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前9條

1 本報記者 李永生 陳濤;“盈余分配表”的秘密[N];農(nóng)民日報;2013年

2 ;《農(nóng)民專業(yè)合作社法》知識問答（三）[N];人民日報;2007年

3 本報記者 劉福仁;建設(shè)農(nóng)民合作社應(yīng)避免走進誤區(qū)[N];吉林農(nóng)村報;2010年

4 本報記者 毛慶　本報通訊員 工萱;激辯1小時 社員盈余分配比例翻番[N];南京日報;2011年

5 北京市第二中級人民法院法官 顧國增;中外合資企業(yè)盈余分配的警鐘[N];國際商報;2004年

6 朱慶海;公民股東退股后仍享有知情權(quán)嗎？[N];江蘇法制報;2005年

7 ;合作社如何實行特殊的盈余分配制度?[N];東方城鄉(xiāng)報;2009年

8 記者 張紅;天天有活干 月月有錢賺 年年有發(fā)展[N];東方煙草報;2012年

9 本報記者 鄧靜 本報通訊員 張洪雨 任淑娟;“要想有利潤，先讓農(nóng)戶賺到錢”[N];德州日報;2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 包如源;股東盈余分配權(quán)的司法救濟與立法完善[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年

2 王千惠;論有限責(zé)任公司盈余分配爭議的司法介入[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 張君;有限公司股東盈余分配權(quán)的司法保護問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

4 葛瑩;論非基于公司決議的盈余分配請求權(quán)的司法保護[D];延邊大學(xué);2016年

5 云闖;有限責(zé)任公司股東盈余分配權(quán)利的法律保障與救濟[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

6 張yN芮;我國有限責(zé)任公司盈余分配法律問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

7 孫晶;股東盈余分配的司法介入問題研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2014年

8 姜元哲;公司小股東利益保護之強制盈余分配之訴研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2011年

9 廖學(xué)勇;論股東盈余分配請求權(quán)的司法介入及其限度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

10 葉永濤;我國農(nóng)民專業(yè)合作社盈余分配制度研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2154086