【作者】 张德娟；

【导师】 夏黑讯；

【作者基本信息】 新疆大学 ， 民商法（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 随着商事活动创新发展,股权代持这一商行为引发了诸多具有探讨价值的法律问题。显名股东的金钱债权人申请对代持股权执行过程中,隐名股东所提执行异议之诉就是一类由股权代持行为引发的同时牵涉实体与程序、代持双方与显名股东债权人的纠纷。关于此类纠纷,由于公司法及其司法解释至今未有明确具体的规定,理论上存在较大争议,裁判标准也难以统一,长久以来这一问题成为理论与实务中关注的焦点,《九民纪要》对该问题亦是议而未决。本文通过对隐名股东对执行标的代持股权是否享有民事权益、这种民事权益的实体法性质、这种权益能否对抗申请执行人的金钱债权,即案外人异议之诉的三个审查步骤展开分析论证。该诉中要解决的核心问题是隐名股东享有的民事权益能否对抗显名股东的金钱债权人的权利。分析过程中以实务中最高院类案不同判的判决为切入点,对比归纳总结出争议焦点,争议焦点涉及理论争议与法律适用争议,在将理论与实务相结合的基础上,初步分析得出代持股权强制执行过程中,权利外观主义倾向于保护隐名股东;公司法第32条可用于保护金钱债权人。最后从股东自身自身防范意识以及具体制度方面对隐名股东提出具体可行的保护建议。以期通过本文的分析论证探索出基本统一的规则,能够同时维护隐名股东合法权益以及解决股权执行难问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the innovation and development of commercial activities,the act of holding shares on behalf of others has caused many valuable legal issues.In the process of the money creditor of the famous shareholder applying for the execution of the proxy share,the lawsuit of execution objection raised by the dormant shareholder is a kind of dispute,which involves entity and procedure,both parties of proxy share and the creditor of the famous shareholder at the same time.As for this kind of dispute,because the company law and its judicial interpretation have not clear and specific provisions so far,there is a great controversy in theory,and it is difficult to unify the judgment standards.For a long time,this issue has become the focus of attention in theory and practice,and the nine people’s minutes has also discussed this issue.This paper analyzes and proves whether the dormant shareholders have civil rights and interests in the subject matter of execution,the nature of the substantive law of such civil rights and interests,and whether such rights and interests can resist the monetary claims of the applicant for execution,that is,the three review steps of the action of dissent from the outside of the case.The core problem to be solved in the lawsuit is whether the civil rights and interests enjoyed by the dormant shareholders can resist the rights of the money creditors of the famous shareholders.In the process of analysis,the judgment of different judgments of the Supreme Court cases in practice is taken as the starting point,and the focus of dispute is summarized through comparison.The focus of dispute involves theoretical dispute and legal application dispute.Based on the combination of theory and practice,the preliminary analysis shows that in the process of enforcement of proxy shares,the right externalism tends to protect the dormant shareholders;Article 32 of the company law can be used to protect gold Money creditors.Finally,the paper puts forward some concrete and feasible protection suggestions to the dormant shareholders from the aspects of their own prevention consciousness and specific system.In order to explore the basic unified rules through the analysis and demonstration of this paper,can maintain the legitimate rights and interests of dormant shareholders and solve the problem of equity enforcement.更多还原