摘要
通过对130个司法案例进行分析,本文发现法官在司法实践中对183条解散标准的理解不一,一些法官在案件中将《司解(二)》第一条理解为"公司经营管理发生严重困难"的细化标准;在判决是否解散公司时,由于调解原则不能弥补替代性措施的缺失,法官过度依赖"公司是否正常经营"标准,股东利益并未得到充分保护。这些问题产生的原因可归结为公司法183条与《司解(二)》第一条的关系定位不清晰,解散标准过于模糊与司法解散替代性措施的缺失,未来的制度设计应当从细化解散标准和提供替代性措施两方面展开。
Based on the analysis of 130 judicial cases , this article found that , in judicial practice , judges have different understandings of dissolved pursuant to article 183 .In some cases , articles 1 of judicial interpretations was understood as the detailed standard of “the serious difficulties of company management ”.In the decision of whether dissolute the company , as the principle of mediation cannot make up for the lack of alternative measures , the judges over-rely on the standard of “does company normal operation”, and the shareholders′interests have not been fully protected .The causes of these problems can be summed up that , the relation between article 183 of company law and articles 1 of judicial inter-pretations being not clear , the dissolution of the standard being too vague and the lack of the alternative measures of judi -cial dissolution.Therefore, the system design in the future should be refined in detailing dissolution standards and provi-ding alternative measures .
出处
《商业研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第9期186-192,共7页
Commercial Research
关键词
公司司法解散
实证研究
解散标准
judicial dissolution of company
empirical research
standard of company dissolution
