公司发起人的规制研究

【作者】 李静；

【导师】 李建伟；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 公司发起人在公司设立过程中发挥着重要的角色。然而，我国《公司法》对于发起人的规定很不完善，致使实践中出现许多问题。本文意在通过对发起人法律规制体系的梳理，找寻我国相关立法的缺失，使其进一步完善。具体来说，本文共分五个部分：第一部分：发起人的认定及法律地位。首先，对于发起人身份的认定，理论上主要存在形式概念说、实质概念说和两概念结合说三种观点。其次，讨论发起人的法律地位。分别列举大陆法系和英美法系的观点并进行了评判。笔者支持“两分法”的观点：就发起人作为一个个体和作为一个群体两个角度来认定发起人的法律地位。第二部分：对发起人进行规制的依据。首先，相对于公司设立过程中的其他当事人，发起人享有一些优于其他股东的权利，依据“权利义务相一致”的法律原则，有必要对发起人予以法律规制。其次，安全与效率这一对法律基本价值的博弈，决定了只有在公司设立过程中加强对发起人的法律规制，才能实现既维护交易安全，又促进公司设立效率的双重目标。第三，发起人自身利益最大化的动机可能损害社会、公司和其他利益相关主体的权利，这种利益冲突的存在要求加强对发起人的规制。第三部分：发起人的资格规制。首先，发起人能力的限制，笔者从公民享有权利的资格平等等三个方面得出行为能力欠缺者同样可以作为公司发起人的结论。其次，发起人出资的限制，本文认为，为保障发起人在设立过程中能够更多的为成立后公司的健全人格着想，发起人必须出资或者认购公司股份。最后，针对发起人人数限制，本文就我国1993年、2005年《公司法》以及《公司法解释三》中针对发起人人数限制的规定进行了梳理，得出我国应当将承认一人股份公司作为鼓励投资兴业的措施之一的结论。第四部分：发起人的行为及其规制。首先介绍了先公司合同，将其划分为以发起人名义订立的合同、以设立中公司名义订立的合同和以成立后公司名义订立的合同三种形式。其次，针对发起人的现物出资行为，比较各国立法实践，分析我国现物出资瑕疵的规制现状；第三，就募集设立股份公司发起人特有的行为及其规制进行了阐述。第五部分：我国公司发起人规制的立法完善。在考察我国现实情况的基础上，笔者对我国公司发起人制度提出了若干立法建议：首先，《公司法解释三》对发起人的概念界定并不合理，应当重新界定；其次，应当加大对发起人现物出资的规制，制定更加严格的现物出资程序；第三，扩大股东代表诉讼的适用范围，将股东代表诉讼的被告明确扩展至发起人，防止发起人滥用优势地位，维护公司及股东的利益；第四，引入发起人信义义务的概念。更多还原

【Abstract】 The company promoters play an important role in the process ofcompany establishment. However, the "Company Law" is far from perfect,resulting many problems in practice. This article is intend to find theAbsence of legislation in our country and further to improve the legislation.The thesis consists of five parts:Part Ⅰ: Identification of the promoters and their legal status. First, intheory, there are three kinds of theories about the definition of the promoter:formalism, substantial theory and theory of a combination of the formertwo ones. Secondly, the legal status of the sponsor. Citing the views of civillaw and common law system. I support the view of the "dichotomy":regards the sponsor as an individual and a group, their legal status isdifferent.Part Ⅱ: the basis of the regulation. First, the promoters enjoy someadvantages over the other parties, according to the principle of “rightsconsistent with obligations”, it is necessary to regulate promoters. Secondly,strengthen the legal regulation of the promoters is the best way to achievethe dual goals of not only safeguard the security of transactions, but alsofacilitated the establishment of efficiency. Third, the promoters’ intendingto maximize their own interests is likely to prejudice the rights of society,companies and other stakeholders, the existence of such a conflict ofinterest requirements to strengthen the regulation of the promoters.Part Ⅲ: regulation of the promoters’ qualifications. First, the peoplehave equal Legal capacity, Individual who lack of capacity can also becomethe company promoters. Secondly, the sponsor funded limitations, for thesound personality of the company after its establishment, the sponsor mustbe charged or to subscribe the shares of the Company. Finally, the numberlimitation, most nations have canceled restrictions on the number ofpromoters; the "Company Law" of our country should Lifting of the restrictions too.Part Ⅳ: The behavior of promoters and its regulation. First introducedthe before corporate contracts.it can be divided into three types. Secondly,the present matter in our country for the promoters’ contribution behavior;third, described unique behavior of joint-stock companies promoters.Part Ⅴ: the improvement of Legislation. Putting forward a number oflegislative proposals: First, redefine the concept of promoters; Secondly,we should increase regulation of promoters; Third, the expand the scope ofthe shareholders’ representative action to prevent the promoters fromabusing of rights, maintaining the interests of company and shareholders.Finally, introduce of the concept of fiduciary duties.更多还原