股东代表诉讼论文：论我国股东代表诉讼制度司法困境与出路
【中文摘要】2005年新修订的我国《公司法》首次在法律上正
式确立了股东代表诉讼制度,对原告股东的资格、被告、诉讼前置程序及可诉行为四个方面作出规定。但是新《公司法》有关股东代表诉讼制度的规定过于原则,诸如原告主体资格、诉讼前置程序、公司的诉讼地位、举证责任分配、代表诉讼时效、诉讼费用承担及担保、诉讼管辖等,或者立法不明确,或者是制度缺失,导致实践中存在诸多困境。本文结合新《公司法》第152条之规定,从我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法现状入手,分析立法不足与司法实践中的现实困境。运用比较、分析的方法,借鉴英、美、日等国家(地区)关于股东代表诉讼制度的立法规定与司法实践,重点提出完善该项制度的设想建议,使这项移植域外的制度本土化,以期适应现代社会的发展。本文分为引言、正文两大部分,正文由四个部分组成：第一部分以一个真实案例引出本文要讨论的主题。第二部分分析我国股东代表诉讼制度在司法实践中的现实困境。该部分主要从我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法规定与司法实践的困境,分析了该制度存在的不足之处。第三部分从比较法的角度考察域外有关股东代表诉讼制度的立法。第二部分的困境分析与第三部分的域外立法考察,为后文探讨完善该制度之构想埋下伏笔。第四部分基于我国的实际司法困境,借鉴国外相关立法经验,提出完善该制度之思考。笔者借鉴了英、美、日等主要国家有关该制度的具
体规定,结合我国实际情况,提出了有针对性的立法建议：1、完善原告股东资格的限制,增加主观方面的限制,即确立”洁手规则”。2、明确公司为诉讼参加人的法律地位。3、一般情况下代表诉讼由公司所在地法院专属管辖,而且中级人民法院享有一审管辖权。4、通过司法解释把前置程序例外的“情况紧急”类型化为代表诉讼时效即将届至等情形。5、对股东代表诉讼时效期间作出专门规定。6、明确将股东代表诉讼案件定性为非财产案件,同时建立胜诉股东诉讼费用补偿制度及诉讼费用担保制度。7、规定公司内部人员作为被告的股东代表诉讼中,适用举证责任倒置原则。公司外部第三人作为被告时,适用一般民诉规则。8、建立股东代表诉讼和解制度。
【英文摘要】Amended in 2005 in China, “Company Law” for the first time formally established in law the derivative
action, the shareholders of the qualifications of the plaintiff, the defendant, pre-litigation procedures and actions in four areas can be provided for complaints. However, the new
“Company Law” provisions of the derivative action is too principles, such as, qualification of the plaintiff,
pre-litigation procedure, the company’s litigation position, the burden of proof allocation, limitation of actions,
litigation costs and other commitments and guarantees, lawsuit jurisdiction and so on, or the legislation does not clear, or is the system loss, leading to the practice, there are many
difficulties. In this paper, the new provisions of Article 152 of the Companies Act, from the derivative action legislative situation, analyzes the inadequacies and practical
difficulties in judicial practice. The use of comparison, analysis, learn England, United States, Japan and other countries (regions) on the derivative action litigation
legislative provisions and judicial practices, focusing on the idea of the system put forward a sound proposal to make the transplant system of extraterritorial localization to the development of modern society.This article is divided into introduction and body two parts. The body consists of four parts. The first part leads to a real case to discuss the subject of this article. The second part analyzes our country derivative action in the judicial practice realistic difficult position. This part mainly practices two aspects from our country
derivative action legislative provisions and the plight of judicial practice, analyzes this system existence the
deficiency. The third part from the perspective of comparative law inspects the extra-regional derivative action legislation. The second part of difficult position analysis and the third part of Investigation of extraterritorial legislation
consummate conception of this system for the later word
discussion to lay down the foreshadowing. The fourth part based on our country’s actual judicial difficult position, learn from the overseas related legislation experience, proposes that consummates ponder of this system. The author draws on England, United States, Japan and other major countries related this system’s concrete provision, combines with the actual situation in China, put forwards the target-oriented
legislative proposals. lnd, Improve the qualifications of the plaintiff shareholders. Increases subjective restrictions. Namely establishes the clean hand rule.2nd, Stipulates
explicitly the company is the legal status of participants in the proceedings.3rd,In the ordinary circumstances the derivative action by the company locus court exclusive
jurisdiction. Moreover the Intermediate people’s court enjoys the first trial jurisdiction.4rd,Through judicial
interpretation of the pre-program the exception of
the”emergency”type into the session to limitation of actions and so on situations.5rd,To limitation of actions period makes specially the stipulation.6rd, Explicitly determines the
nature of the derivative action case as the non-property case, simultaneously establishes the winning shareholder litigation expense compensatory regime and the security for costs system
7rd, Provides the company interior personnel as defendant in the derivative action,applying the onus of proof upside down principles. Third person outside the company as a defendant,is suitable the common people to sue the rule.8rd,Establishes the derivative action reconciliation system.
【关键词】股东代表诉讼 立法缺陷 司法困境 立法完善
【英文关键词】Derivative action Legislative
deficiencies Judicial trouble legislative improvement
【目录】论我国股东代表诉讼制度司法困境与出路
6-7
12-13Abstract7-8引言11-1212内容摘要一、问题的提出(二) 案件引发的(一) 案情简介及法院裁判
若干思考12-13
12-131. 我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法状况13二、我国股东代表诉2. 案件引发的若干思考
讼司法实务中现实困境13-18
格规定不尽完善13-14
空白14-15
15(一) 困境之一:原告的主体资(二) 困境之二:公司诉讼地位的立法(三) 困境之三:诉讼管辖原则的空缺(四) 困境之四:如何认定豁免前置程序的”情况紧
(五) 困境之五:缺乏诉讼时效制度的规定
(六) 困境之六:诉讼费用承担与担保制度的缺失
(七) 困境之七:如何分配股东代表诉讼的举证责任
(八) 困境之八:没有规定和解制度的立法缺憾急”15-1616-171717-18
18
18-23三、国外(地区)股东代表诉讼制度的比较考察(一) 股东代表诉讼中的原告18-20
2. 大陆法参考19-20
(三) 诉讼管辖原则
21-221. 英美法参考18-19的法律地位20用承担与担保制度
22-23
23-30(二) 公司在诉讼中20-21(四) 诉讼费(五) 股东代表诉讼之和解四、我国股东代表诉讼制度完善之思考(一) 提起股东代表诉讼的原告资格23-24(二) 公司乃股东代表诉讼的诉讼参加人24-25
的管辖原则25-26
标准26-27(三) 股东代表诉讼(四) 前置程序例外的”情况紧急”的认定(六) 股(五) 股东代表诉讼的诉讼时效27
东代表诉讼的诉讼费用承担与担保27-28
的举证责任28
致谢30-31(七) 股东代表诉讼(八) 股东代表诉讼之和解制度28-30参考文献31-32
股东代表诉讼论文：论我国股东代表诉讼制度司法困境与出路
【中文摘要】2005年新修订的我国《公司法》首次在法律上正
式确立了股东代表诉讼制度,对原告股东的资格、被告、诉讼前置程序及可诉行为四个方面作出规定。但是新《公司法》有关股东代表诉讼制度的规定过于原则,诸如原告主体资格、诉讼前置程序、公司的诉讼地位、举证责任分配、代表诉讼时效、诉讼费用承担及担保、诉讼管辖等,或者立法不明确,或者是制度缺失,导致实践中存在诸多困境。本文结合新《公司法》第152条之规定,从我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法现状入手,分析立法不足与司法实践中的现实困境。运用比较、分析的方法,借鉴英、美、日等国家(地区)关于股东代表诉讼制度的立法规定与司法实践,重点提出完善该项制度的设想建议,使这项移植域外的制度本土化,以期适应现代社会的发展。本文分为引言、正文两大部分,正文由四个部分组成：第一部分以一个真实案例引出本文要讨论的主题。第二部分分析我国股东代表诉讼制度在司法实践中的现实困境。该部分主要从我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法规定与司法实践的困境,分析了该制度存在的不足之处。第三部分从比较法的角度考察域外有关股东代表诉讼制度的立法。第二部分的困境分析与第三部分的域外立法考察,为后文探讨完善该制度之构想埋下伏笔。第四部分基于我国的实际司法困境,借鉴国外相关立法经验,提出完善该制度之思考。笔者借鉴了英、美、日等主要国家有关该制度的具
体规定,结合我国实际情况,提出了有针对性的立法建议：1、完善原告股东资格的限制,增加主观方面的限制,即确立”洁手规则”。2、明确公司为诉讼参加人的法律地位。3、一般情况下代表诉讼由公司所在地法院专属管辖,而且中级人民法院享有一审管辖权。4、通过司法解释把前置程序例外的“情况紧急”类型化为代表诉讼时效即将届至等情形。5、对股东代表诉讼时效期间作出专门规定。6、明确将股东代表诉讼案件定性为非财产案件,同时建立胜诉股东诉讼费用补偿制度及诉讼费用担保制度。7、规定公司内部人员作为被告的股东代表诉讼中,适用举证责任倒置原则。公司外部第三人作为被告时,适用一般民诉规则。8、建立股东代表诉讼和解制度。
【英文摘要】Amended in 2005 in China, “Company Law” for the first time formally established in law the derivative
action, the shareholders of the qualifications of the plaintiff, the defendant, pre-litigation procedures and actions in four areas can be provided for complaints. However, the new
“Company Law” provisions of the derivative action is too principles, such as, qualification of the plaintiff,
pre-litigation procedure, the company’s litigation position, the burden of proof allocation, limitation of actions,
litigation costs and other commitments and guarantees, lawsuit jurisdiction and so on, or the legislation does not clear, or is the system loss, leading to the practice, there are many
difficulties. In this paper, the new provisions of Article 152 of the Companies Act, from the derivative action legislative situation, analyzes the inadequacies and practical
difficulties in judicial practice. The use of comparison, analysis, learn England, United States, Japan and other countries (regions) on the derivative action litigation
legislative provisions and judicial practices, focusing on the idea of the system put forward a sound proposal to make the transplant system of extraterritorial localization to the development of modern society.This article is divided into introduction and body two parts. The body consists of four parts. The first part leads to a real case to discuss the subject of this article. The second part analyzes our country derivative action in the judicial practice realistic difficult position. This part mainly practices two aspects from our country
derivative action legislative provisions and the plight of judicial practice, analyzes this system existence the
deficiency. The third part from the perspective of comparative law inspects the extra-regional derivative action legislation. The second part of difficult position analysis and the third part of Investigation of extraterritorial legislation
consummate conception of this system for the later word
discussion to lay down the foreshadowing. The fourth part based on our country’s actual judicial difficult position, learn from the overseas related legislation experience, proposes that consummates ponder of this system. The author draws on England, United States, Japan and other major countries related this system’s concrete provision, combines with the actual situation in China, put forwards the target-oriented
legislative proposals. lnd, Improve the qualifications of the plaintiff shareholders. Increases subjective restrictions. Namely establishes the clean hand rule.2nd, Stipulates
explicitly the company is the legal status of participants in the proceedings.3rd,In the ordinary circumstances the derivative action by the company locus court exclusive
jurisdiction. Moreover the Intermediate people’s court enjoys the first trial jurisdiction.4rd,Through judicial
interpretation of the pre-program the exception of
the”emergency”type into the session to limitation of actions and so on situations.5rd,To limitation of actions period makes specially the stipulation.6rd, Explicitly determines the
nature of the derivative action case as the non-property case, simultaneously establishes the winning shareholder litigation expense compensatory regime and the security for costs system
7rd, Provides the company interior personnel as defendant in the derivative action,applying the onus of proof upside down principles. Third person outside the company as a defendant,is suitable the common people to sue the rule.8rd,Establishes the derivative action reconciliation system.
【关键词】股东代表诉讼 立法缺陷 司法困境 立法完善
【英文关键词】Derivative action Legislative
deficiencies Judicial trouble legislative improvement
【目录】论我国股东代表诉讼制度司法困境与出路
6-7
12-13Abstract7-8引言11-1212内容摘要一、问题的提出(二) 案件引发的(一) 案情简介及法院裁判
若干思考12-13
12-131. 我国股东代表诉讼制度的立法状况13二、我国股东代表诉2. 案件引发的若干思考
讼司法实务中现实困境13-18
格规定不尽完善13-14
空白14-15
15(一) 困境之一:原告的主体资(二) 困境之二:公司诉讼地位的立法(三) 困境之三:诉讼管辖原则的空缺(四) 困境之四:如何认定豁免前置程序的”情况紧
(五) 困境之五:缺乏诉讼时效制度的规定
(六) 困境之六:诉讼费用承担与担保制度的缺失
(七) 困境之七:如何分配股东代表诉讼的举证责任
(八) 困境之八:没有规定和解制度的立法缺憾急”15-1616-171717-18
18
18-23三、国外(地区)股东代表诉讼制度的比较考察(一) 股东代表诉讼中的原告18-20
2. 大陆法参考19-20
(三) 诉讼管辖原则
21-221. 英美法参考18-19的法律地位20用承担与担保制度
22-23
23-30(二) 公司在诉讼中20-21(四) 诉讼费(五) 股东代表诉讼之和解四、我国股东代表诉讼制度完善之思考(一) 提起股东代表诉讼的原告资格23-24(二) 公司乃股东代表诉讼的诉讼参加人24-25
的管辖原则25-26
标准26-27(三) 股东代表诉讼(四) 前置程序例外的”情况紧急”的认定(六) 股(五) 股东代表诉讼的诉讼时效27
东代表诉讼的诉讼费用承担与担保27-28
的举证责任28
致谢30-31(七) 股东代表诉讼(八) 股东代表诉讼之和解制度28-30参考文献31-32