【摘要】：古羅馬偉大法學(xué)家烏爾比安曾說(shuō)過(guò)：“法律是公正與善良的藝術(shù)�！弊鳛槌C正公司人格制度異化的事后補(bǔ)救措施,我國(guó)2005年公司法的修改將發(fā)端于英美法系的公司人格否認(rèn)制度大膽引進(jìn)并適用,成為全世界范圍內(nèi)首次以成文法形式確立該制度的國(guó)家。但是在實(shí)踐中,學(xué)界和實(shí)務(wù)界卻多將目光集中在由公司債權(quán)人作為原告針對(duì)股東濫用公司獨(dú)立人格和股東有限責(zé)任來(lái)逃避公司債務(wù)的行為進(jìn)行起訴,最后揭開(kāi)公司面紗,由股東替公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任的傳統(tǒng)公司人格否認(rèn)的情形,對(duì)實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的由股東債權(quán)人針對(duì)股東濫用公司獨(dú)立人格轉(zhuǎn)移資產(chǎn),逃避債務(wù)進(jìn)行起訴,并最終由公司對(duì)股東個(gè)人債務(wù)承擔(dān)責(zé)任的公司人格反向否認(rèn)制度研究甚少,本文所要探討的正是如何規(guī)范公司人格反向否認(rèn)制度的司法適用。本文除前言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外共分為四部分：第一部分是對(duì)公司人格否認(rèn)制度的基礎(chǔ)理論進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)梳理�；A(chǔ)理論是制度研究的起點(diǎn),是公司人格反向否認(rèn)制度的邏輯基礎(chǔ)。文章首先對(duì)兩大法系公司人格否認(rèn)制度的理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了詳盡論述,從而得出我國(guó)適用該制度的法理基礎(chǔ),進(jìn)而在現(xiàn)有公司法律制度框架內(nèi)對(duì)本文探討的公司人格反向否認(rèn)制度的法律依據(jù)進(jìn)行論述。第二部分是對(duì)公司人格反向否認(rèn)構(gòu)成要件的全面分析,文章從主體要件、行為要件、結(jié)果要件三方面全方位分析了反向否認(rèn)的司法適用,同時(shí)對(duì)各個(gè)要件具體適用中應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了詳盡論述,最終得出只有全部滿足以上三個(gè)要件才能反向否認(rèn)公司人格,要求公司為股東的個(gè)人債務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)。第三部分是對(duì)公司人格反向否認(rèn)適用范圍的論述。與傳統(tǒng)公司人格否認(rèn)相似,在反向否認(rèn)的適用范圍上,本文主張只要存在股東濫用公司獨(dú)立人格和股東有限責(zé)任逃避自身債務(wù)的情形,則不論公司形態(tài)均可適用,本文同時(shí)對(duì)實(shí)踐中易發(fā)生反向否認(rèn)的一人公司、母子公司、關(guān)聯(lián)公司進(jìn)行了重點(diǎn)分析。第四部分是對(duì)公司人格反向否認(rèn)責(zé)任承擔(dān)的論述。在該部分,文章主要從責(zé)任承擔(dān)的范圍和責(zé)任承擔(dān)的方式兩方面進(jìn)行了探討。在責(zé)任承擔(dān)范圍上,本文主張公司在其受益范圍內(nèi)對(duì)股東個(gè)人債務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)；而在責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式上,本文主張公司僅應(yīng)承擔(dān)補(bǔ)充連帶責(zé)任,即債權(quán)人只有在股東無(wú)力償債的范圍內(nèi)才能向公司主張。
[Abstract]:The great Roman jurist Uribian once said, "Law is the art of justice and goodness." As a remedial measure to correct the alienation of corporate personality system, the amendment of our company law in 2005 will be introduced and applied boldly in the corporate personality denial system of common law system. It became the first country in the world to establish the system by statute law. However, in practice, scholars and practitioners often focus on the prosecution of corporate creditors as plaintiffs against shareholders who abuse their independent personality and shareholders' limited liability to evade corporate debt, and finally unveil the corporate veil. In the case of disavowal of the traditional corporate personality that the shareholders bear the responsibility for the company, the shareholder creditors should sue the shareholders for abusing the independent personality of the company to transfer the assets and evade the debts in practice. Finally, there is little research on the reverse denial of corporate personality, which is the responsibility of the company to the individual debt of the shareholders. This paper discusses exactly how to regulate the judicial application of the reverse denial of corporate personality. Besides the preface and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts: the first part is a systematic analysis of the basic theory of corporate personality denial system. Basic theory is the starting point of institutional research and the logical basis of reverse denial of corporate personality. Firstly, this paper discusses in detail the theoretical basis of the corporate personality denial system in the two major legal systems, and then obtains the legal basis for the application of the system in our country. Then it discusses the legal basis of the reverse denial of corporate personality in the framework of the existing corporate legal system. The second part is a comprehensive analysis of the corporate personality reverse denial elements, the article from the main elements, behavior requirements, the results of the elements of three all-round analysis of the judicial application of reverse denial. At the same time, the problems that should be paid attention to in the specific application of each element are discussed in detail. Finally, it is concluded that only when the above three elements are satisfied, can the company reverse deny the corporate personality and require the company to be responsible for the individual debts of the shareholders. The third part discusses the scope of reverse denial of corporate personality. Similar to the traditional corporate personality denial, this paper argues that as long as shareholders abuse their independent personality and shareholders' limited liability to evade their own debts, the application scope of reverse denial is applicable regardless of corporate form. At the same time, this paper focuses on the one-person company, parent-subsidiary company and affiliated company which are prone to reverse denial in practice. The fourth part is to the company personality reverse denial responsibility to bear the discussion. In this part, the article mainly discusses the scope of responsibility and the way of responsibility. In terms of the scope of liability, this paper argues that the company should be responsible for the individual debts of shareholders within its scope of benefit, while in the way of liability, the company should only bear supplementary joint and several liability. That is, creditors can only within the scope of shareholder insolvency can claim to the company.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬輝;公司人格與公司人格否認(rèn)[J];廣東行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

2 郭曉嵐;公司人格否認(rèn)原則之適用[J];陰山學(xué)刊;2002年03期

3 李愛(ài)民;公司人格否認(rèn)原則的適用研究[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

4 李婷;論公司人格否定理論[J];南京林業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

5 陳鎮(zhèn);劉曉瑩;;再論公司人格否認(rèn)理論[J];人民司法;2005年01期

6 張一平;;公司人格否認(rèn)的界定[J];江西行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年S1期

7 張付成;;“公司人格否認(rèn)”辨析[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

8 王延川;;公司人格理念及其在我國(guó)繼受之困境分析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年03期

9 曾英姿;;從一個(gè)具體案例談我國(guó)的公司人格否認(rèn)制[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年05期

10 焦慧君;;我國(guó)公司人格被濫用的現(xiàn)狀及建議[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年09期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 王政勇;一人公司人格否定規(guī)定的適用[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

2 陳應(yīng)春;引入“公司人格否認(rèn)規(guī)則”[N];建筑時(shí)報(bào);2004年

3 虞政平;質(zhì)疑“公司人格否認(rèn)”之說(shuō)[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

4 吳淮平;公司人格否認(rèn)司法實(shí)踐中的困惑[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2007年

5 周吉高　劉子劍 范升強(qiáng);從本案看公司人格混同的理解與處理[N];建筑時(shí)報(bào);2014年

6 唐登國(guó) 錢暉;公司人格否認(rèn)及相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2002年

7 程照東 吳金泉;公司人格否認(rèn)制的構(gòu)成要件[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

8 朱慈蘊(yùn) 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院;控制股東與公司的獨(dú)立人格[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

9 周 旭 朱 燕;對(duì)名不副實(shí)的有限責(zé)任公司之確認(rèn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

10 梁宗德;淺議“刺破公司面紗”原則在執(zhí)行中的運(yùn)用[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 凌祁漫;公司設(shè)立法律制度研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2006年

2 張安毅;公司捐贈(zèng)法律規(guī)制研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

3 安文錄;公司犯罪若干問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

4 楊泰和;中國(guó)上市公司關(guān)聯(lián)交易的法律規(guī)制[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

5 盧林;公司犯罪論[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

6 丁英華;公司犯罪及其治理[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

7 邢丹;關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)破產(chǎn)法律制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

8 劉坤;公司自治研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 ;[D];;年

2 ;[D];;年

3 ;[D];;年

4 ;[D];;年

5 ;[D];;年

6 ;[D];;年

7 ;[D];;年

8 ;[D];;年

9 ;[D];;年

10 ;[D];;年

，

本文編號(hào)：2248984