作者：耿利航
作者介绍：山东大学法学院教授，博士生导师
出版日期：2016年12月9日
内容提要 在我国公司解散纠纷的司法实践中,最高人民法院倾向于以公司内部人合性障碍为裁判考量核心因素,实际上给了原告股东无理由退出公司的权利(力),这有悖于有限公司本质内控特征,侵害了公司和其他股东的合法权益。而下级法院倾向于以公司对外经营情况为裁判考量核心因素,又没有充分考虑给予正常经营的公司里受到严重压制的股东应当的解散救济,少数股东拥有真实的退出权利是抑制多数股东各种机会主义行为的更有效工具,是公司解散制度的核心功能所在,法院判决公司解散从不意味着运营正常的公司必定会被强制清算。为谨慎起见,我国法院应将公司解散救济原则上应用于多数股东存在侵吞、转移公司资产等严重违反忠实义务行为的公司解散纠纷案件。
关键词 公司解散 股东压制 人合性障碍
Abstract: In the judicial practice of corporate dissolution disputes, the Supreme People's Court tends to consider the obstacle of intracompany personal relationships as the core assessment element, which actually gives the plaintiff shareholder the right to withdraw from the company without reasons. This does not match the feature of internal control in limited companies and infringes on the company and other shareholders' legal rights. However, the lower court tends to regard the company's external management situation as the core assessment element without fully considering providing seriously suppressed shareholders in the company under normal management with appropriate dissolution relief. Giving minority shareholders the real withdrawal right is the effective tool to restrain kinds of opportunistic behaviors of majority shareholders, which is the key function of the corporate dissolution system. The corporate dissolution judged by the court does not mean that companies under normal management must go into compulsory liquidation. To be prudent, Chinese courts should apply the principle of corporate dissolution relief to cases about corporate dissolution disputes in which majority shareholders embezzle and transfer corporate assets.