本文關(guān)鍵詞：論代持股關(guān)系中股權(quán)的歸屬與處分　出處：《浙江大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 股權(quán)歸屬 代持股關(guān)系 公示 出資 善意取得

【摘要】：對(duì)代持股關(guān)系中股權(quán)的歸屬與處分的討論,最為核心的研究問(wèn)題就是股權(quán)歸屬問(wèn)題,所有有關(guān)代持股問(wèn)題均離不開(kāi)對(duì)股權(quán)歸屬的討論。而股權(quán)歸屬問(wèn)題恰恰又是代持股問(wèn)題中最具爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題,現(xiàn)學(xué)界對(duì)此主要存在實(shí)質(zhì)說(shuō)和形式說(shuō)兩種主流觀(guān)點(diǎn)。同時(shí),對(duì)于名義股東擅自處分代持股行為的認(rèn)定,《公司法解釋(三)》第25條創(chuàng)新式地引入了《物權(quán)法》中的善意取得制度。此不僅使得其自身?xiàng)l文之間的邏輯顯得突兀,而且又進(jìn)一步加劇了學(xué)界對(duì)股權(quán)歸屬的爭(zhēng)論。股權(quán)歸屬的討論直接涉及到對(duì)代持股關(guān)系的性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定。對(duì)此,學(xué)界中存在普通債之關(guān)系、合伙關(guān)系、隱名代理關(guān)系、信托關(guān)系等不同觀(guān)點(diǎn),各觀(guān)點(diǎn)的出發(fā)點(diǎn)均有所不同,且皆有可取之處,但亦存在著各自的問(wèn)題。而代持股關(guān)系的性質(zhì)問(wèn)題與股權(quán)的歸屬問(wèn)題之所以存在如此大的爭(zhēng)議,更深層次的原因是我國(guó)股權(quán)變動(dòng)模式存在公示性不足的缺陷。因此,對(duì)股權(quán)歸屬的討論,不僅只是對(duì)實(shí)際出資人與名義股東之間的利益平衡,還需考慮到對(duì)我國(guó)的股權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,乃至我國(guó)民商法體系的影響,尤其是我國(guó)物債二分的體系。對(duì)于名義股東擅自處分代持股行為的認(rèn)定,則應(yīng)從負(fù)擔(dān)行為和處分行為兩方面進(jìn)行討論。股權(quán)歸屬的問(wèn)題不影響債權(quán)合同的效力。而《合同法》第52條有關(guān)"惡意串通"規(guī)定本亦無(wú)適用的空間,但由于《公司法解釋(三)》第25條的存在,名義股東擅自處分代持股行為將有可能被認(rèn)定為"惡意串通"的行為,從而將會(huì)影響到債權(quán)合同的效力。而對(duì)于處分行為效力的認(rèn)定,處分行為性質(zhì)為有權(quán)處分還是無(wú)權(quán)處分是決定處分行為效力的關(guān)鍵。《公司法解釋(三)》第25條對(duì)善意取得制度的引入說(shuō)明最高院的態(tài)度傾向于認(rèn)定處分行為為無(wú)權(quán)處分。然而,善意取得制度的引入又引發(fā)了對(duì)股權(quán)善意取得制度的討論�；诠蓹�(quán)的變動(dòng)模式以及《公司法》第32條第三款的規(guī)定,對(duì)于股權(quán)而言本應(yīng)無(wú)適用善意取得的余地�！豆痉ń忉�(三)》第25條的規(guī)定體現(xiàn)了最高院對(duì)重新平衡實(shí)際出資人、名義股東與第三人之間利益的努力,但從民法體系的角度來(lái)看,其模糊了物債之間的區(qū)分,有違我國(guó)物債二分的體系。
[Abstract]:In the discussion of ownership and disposition of equity in proxy shareholding relationship, the most important research problem is equity ownership. All the issues related to proxy ownership are inseparable from the discussion of ownership, and equity ownership is precisely the most controversial issue in the issue of proxy ownership. There are two main views in the academic circle on this: substance theory and form theory. At the same time, the identification of the act of unauthorized disposition of the nominal shareholders on behalf of the holding of shares. Article 25 innovatively introduces the bona fide acquisition system in the Real Law, which not only makes the logic between its own articles seem abrupt. Moreover, it further intensifies the debate on equity ownership in academic circles. The discussion of ownership directly relates to the recognition of the nature of the relationship of proxy stock ownership. For this, there is a relationship between ordinary debt and partnership in academic circles. Anonymous agency relationship, trust relationship and other different views, the starting point of each point is different, and all have their merits. However, there are also their own problems. And the nature of the relationship between proxy ownership and ownership of equity is so controversial. The deeper reason is that there is insufficient publicity in the mode of stock right change in China. Therefore, the discussion of ownership is not only a balance of interests between actual investors and nominal shareholders. It is also necessary to consider the influence on the mode of stock right change in our country, and even the civil and commercial law system of our country, especially the system of dichotomy of property debt in our country. It should be discussed from the two aspects of burden behavior and disposition behavior. The ownership of shares does not affect the validity of creditor's rights contract. Article 52 of contract Law has no space to apply the provision of "malicious collusion". However, due to the existence of Article 25 of the interpretation of Company Law (3), the act of unauthorized disposition of proxy shareholders by nominal shareholders may be regarded as "malicious collusion". Therefore, it will affect the validity of the contract of creditor's rights. The nature of the disposition is the right to dispose or the unauthorized disposition is the key to determine the validity of the disposition. < interpretation of the Company Law (3). The introduction of the bona fide acquisition system in Article 25 indicates that the Supreme Court's attitude tends to consider the disposition to be unauthorized. The introduction of bona fide acquisition system leads to the discussion of bona fide equity acquisition system, based on the change mode of equity and the third paragraph of Article 32 of Company Law. There should be no room for bona fide acquisition of equity. Article 25 of the Company Law explanation (3) reflects the Supreme Court's efforts to rebalance the interests of actual investors, nominal shareholders and third parties. But from the point of view of civil law system, it blurs the distinction between property debts, which is contrary to the system of duality of property debts in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張雙根;;股權(quán)善意取得之質(zhì)疑——基于解釋論的分析[J];法學(xué)家;2016年01期

2 周游;;股權(quán)利益分離機(jī)制下隱名出資問(wèn)題之再闡釋[J];北方法學(xué);2015年01期

3 張雙根;;論有限責(zé)任公司股東資格的認(rèn)定——以股東名冊(cè)制度的建構(gòu)為中心[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年05期

4 張雙根;;德國(guó)法上股權(quán)善意取得制度之評(píng)析[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2014年02期

5 蔡元慶;;股權(quán)二分論下的有限責(zé)任公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓[J];北方法學(xué);2014年01期

6 郭富青;;論股權(quán)善意取得的依據(jù)與法律適用[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

7 吳鳳君;王柯丁;;有限責(zé)任公司股份代持問(wèn)題——以最高人民法院司法解釋為中心[J];法治研究;2012年09期

8 姚明斌;;有限公司股權(quán)善意取得的法律構(gòu)成[J];政治與法律;2012年08期

9 趙旭東;顧東偉;;隱名出資的法律關(guān)系及其效力認(rèn)定[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

10 孫靜;德國(guó)信托法探析[J];比較法研究;2004年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1418726