【作者】 周辉；

【导师】 储育明；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 股东查账权是公司法为了保障有限责任公司股东利益而设置,通过查阅公司账簿,股东能对公司经营管理与财务情况产生相对真实的认识,也能从中找到侵害其权益的相关证据,加强了对股东权益的法律保障。但是由于部分法律条文规定的过于简单、抽象,在应用到具体案例中时,则略显不足。通过分析安徽省近几年的股东查账纠纷相关判例发现,虽然自《公司法》至《公司法司法解释四》中,逐渐完善了有限责任公司股东查账权的相关规定,给实务中的裁判作出了一定指导,但是判决中仍有部分争议有待解决。其中,主要表现在以下几个方面:第一,中小股东的查账权相对于大股东来说,更容易受到侵犯。第二,《公司法》中对于查账权的主体规定过于简单,而公司中股东关系错综复杂,造成了司法裁判中认定股东是否符合主体条件的困难。第三,《公司法》规定的股东查账范围已不能满足实际中股东了解公司经营、财务状况的需要,不同法院对此裁判也存在差异。第四,股东行使前置程序出现瑕疵,不同法院对于瑕疵履行的认定不同,对前置程序履行的必要性也持不同的理解。第五,对于股东“不正当目的”标准的判断存在差异,因而经常导致同案异判。第六,对于判决之前股东能否委托专业人员代为查阅账簿未有规定,对股东行使查账权造成障碍。对于以上问题,可以采取以下法律对策:第一,提高中小股东的法律意识,在公司章程中约定查账权行使的具体形式以及对公司侵害中小股东查账权制定惩罚措施。第二,明确出资瑕疵不可成为公司拒绝查账的理由,代持股股东则要分情况讨论。第三,应扩大查阅范围至会计凭证、票据等相关附件,明确股东都可查阅。第四,完善股东账簿查账权的前置程序。肯定前置程序履行的必要性,但在诉讼过程中对前置程序履行瑕疵的补正并不违反设立前置程序的立法本意。第五,确立“不正当目的”的判断标准,应当与案件客观事实相印证。第六,明确股东査账权的委托行使,允许未经诉讼程序前股东可委托专业人员代理查阅。更多还原

【Abstract】 Shareholders’ right to audit accounts is set up in the company law to protect the interests of shareholders of limited liability companies.By consulting the company’s account books,shareholders can have a relatively real understanding of the company’s operation and management and financial situation,and can also find relevant evidence of infringement on their rights and interests,which strengthens the legal protection of shareholders’ rights and interests.However,some provisions of the law are too simple and abstract,so they are not enough when applied to specific cases.Through the analysis of the relevant cases of shareholders’ audit disputes in Anhui Province in recent years,it is found that although the relevant provisions of shareholders’ audit right of limited liability company have been gradually improved from the company law to the judicial interpretation 4 of the company law,which has given some guidance to the judgment in practice,there are still some disputes to be solved in the judgment.Among them,mainly in the following aspects: first,the audit right of small and medium shareholders is more vulnerable to infringement than that of large shareholders.Second,the subject of audit right in company law is too simple,and the relationship between shareholders is complex,which makes it difficult to determine whether shareholders meet the subject conditions in judicial judgment.Third,the scope of shareholders’ audit stipulated in the company law can no longer meet the needs of shareholders’ understanding of the company’s operation and financial situation in practice,and different courts have different judgments on it.Fourth,there are defects in the shareholder’s exercise of the pre procedure.Different courts have different opinions on the determination of the defective performance and the necessity of the pre procedure performance.Fifthly,there are different judgments on the standard of "improper purpose" of shareholders,which often lead to different judgments in the same case.Sixth,there is no regulation on whether the shareholders can entrust professional personnel to inspect the account books before the judgment,which hinders the shareholders from exercising the audit right.For the above problems,we can take the following legal countermeasures: first,improve the legal awareness of small and medium-sized shareholders,stipulate the specific form of the exercise of audit right in the articles of association,and formulate punishment measures for the infringement of audit right of small and medium-sized shareholders.Second,it should be clear that the defects of capital contribution can not be the reason for the company to refuse to audit the accounts,and the shareholders holding shares on behalf of the company should discuss it according to the situation.Third,we should expand the scope of access to accounting documents,bills and other related attachments to make it clear that shareholders can access them.Fourth,improve the pre procedure of shareholders’ right to audit account books.It affirms the necessity of the performance of the prepositional procedure,but it does not violate the legislative intention of establishing the prepositional procedure to correct the defects of the performance of the prepositional procedure in the process of litigation.Fifthly,the judgment standard of "improper purpose" should be established to confirm with the objective facts of the case.Sixthly,it is necessary to clarify the entrusted exercise of shareholders’ right to check accounts,and allow shareholders to entrust professional personnel to check accounts before proceeding.更多还原