摘要
作为资本维持制度的核心条款,《公司法》第35条是法院在审判资本维持案件中使用最多的条款。在公司与股东之间财产流动、增资的出资人要求返还出资、有限责任公司股权回购等案件中,法官适用《公司法》第35条作出的判决都存在“同案不同判”的现象。这种现象之所以出现,一方面是因为《公司法》第35条对资本维持理念表述不科学,导致法官在判决时没有按资本维持的逻辑审理案件;另一方面是因为《公司法》某些资本制度缺失,造成法官在审理案件时自由裁量权过大。针对这些问题,本次修订《公司法》应按资本维持的理念重述《公司法》第35条并重新整合资本维持制度;补充公司增资生效条款和有限责任公司股权回购制度。
As a pillar in the capital maintenance rules,Article 35 of Company Law of the People’s Republic of China is applied by judges in most capital maintenance case.In the cases about assets transaction between company and shareholders and company returning investor financial contribution or share repurchase in private company,judges citing Article 35 often appear to common case of different judgments.The problems come from two aspects,one is the Article 35 wrong statement to principle of capital maintenance making judges misunderstand Article 35,and the other is the shortages of some capital rules giving judges more room in making decisions.To Solve these problems,in revising company law this time,the good choice is to restate Article 35 according to the capital maintenance principle while rebuilding capital maintenance system,and to supplement articles about when capital increase become effective and how to repurchase shares in private company.
出处
《法治研究》
CSSCI
2022年第5期73-84,共12页
Research on Rule of Law
关键词
抽逃出资
资本维持
股权回购
增资生效
withdraw capital
capital maintenance
share repurchase
increasing capital come into effect
