【作者】 杨颖；

【导师】 王建文；

【作者基本信息】 南京航空航天大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 2014年,最高人民法院《关于适用公司法若干问题的规定(三)》第17条规定,当股东不履行出资义务或抽逃全部出资时,公司可以行使除名权,解除其股东资格,但由于该规定并未明确除名决议中拟被除名的股东是否适用表决权排除规则,理论届则有排除否定论和排除肯定论之争,实务届则较为统一的认为股东除名决议中拟被除名的股东适用表决权排除规则,但仍有个别法院以法律未明确规定、资本多数决等理由予以否认。根据审理程序的不同,分别归纳出股东除名决议表决权排除规则适用一审和二审以及再审程序的案例,对案例数据进行归纳,同时深入分析典型案例,挖掘实践中股东除名决议表决权排除规则适用存在的问题,包括股东除名决议表决权排除规则适用情形不明确、适用主体不明确以及违反表决权排除规则救济缺失的问题,这些问题表明了股东除名制度存在法律漏洞,故对此进行司法解释填补该法律漏洞,在司法解释中应当明确规定股东除名决议适用表决权排除规则以及适用主体、违反表决权排除规则的救济方式。更多还原

【Abstract】 In 2014,Article 17 of the Supreme People’s Court’s "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law(III)" stipulates that when a shareholder fails to fulfill its capital contribution obligations or abstracts all of its capital contribution,the company can release its shareholders from their status.In practice,it is unanimously held that the exclusion of voting rights applies to the resolution of shareholders’ delisting,but some courts still do not recognize it.According to the different trial procedures,we summarize the cases in which the exclusion of voting rights in shareholders’ resolutions was applied in the first and second trial and re-trial procedures,and summarize the case data,and analyze the typical cases to explore the problems of unclear circumstances,unclear subjects and lack of remedies for violation of the exclusion of voting rights in shareholders’ resolutions.These problems show that there are legal loopholes in the shareholder exclusion system,so a judicial interpretation should be made to fill the legal loopholes,and the judicial interpretation should clarify the application of the exclusion of voting rights in the shareholder exclusion resolution,the applicable subject,and the remedy for violation of the exclusion of voting rights.更多还原