【作者】 吴昊；

【导师】 于莹；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 新世纪以降,我国经济飞速发展,在商事领域,股权由他人代为持有的现象屡见不鲜,其中,代持股权的强制执行问题十分突出。由于我国在法律层面对前述问题并没有明确地规定,导致在司法裁判中出现同案不同判的情况。在该类型案件中,有的审判机关基于商事外观主义判决隐名股东不能排除对代持股权的强制执行,有的审判机关则认为商事外观主义并不适用于强制执行阶段,应该适用于交易行为,从而支持了隐名股东可以排除强制执行。研究该问题的目的在于,为当前我国在该问题领域的争议提出完善的建议。首先,本文对该问题的典型案例进行介绍和分析,引出本文所要探讨的问题,提出本文观点,隐名股东可以排除强制执行。同时对当前学界关于隐名股东能否排除法院的强制执行观点进行梳理,详细阐述当前我国对代持股权强制执行问题所持的两种不同观点。认为隐名股东不可排除强制执行的理由主要有,基于商事外观主义保护外部第三人的信赖利益、基于诚实信用原则和效率价值应许可强制执行,以及隐名股东追求个人利益最大化所引发的风险应自己承担。认为隐名股东可以排除强制执行的理由主要有,商事外观主义不适用非交易第三人,以及从公平正义原则的视角来看,许可强制执行将会违背公平正义原则,并且,如果法院许可强制执行,案外人执行异议之诉作为隐名股东的救济手段将形同虚设。其次,对代持股权排除强制执行进行理论分析,在这一部分对代持股权的实际归属问题进行详细的介绍。学界主要有形式说,实质说,以及折中说,这三种学说都有可取之处,但也有不足,本文所主张的观点类似于折中说的内外有别,在对内关系上与折中说持一致观点,遵从意思自治,但在对外关系上,不同于折中说以工商登记作为确认股权归属的依据的观点,而是应该进行实质审查,因为工商登记只起到对抗效力,是一种消极的推定,所以隐名股东如有相关证据,那么法院在实质审查后应判定该部分股权归属于隐名股东。同时,对商事外观主义内涵,及如何构成进行了释明及阐述,在此基础上明确了商事外观主义的目的在于降低交易成本,维护交易安全,其适用范围应限于商事交易领域,并对第三人的范围进行了界定,明确本文所研究的问题并无商事外观主义、股权善意取得制度的适用余地,亦针对法院判决隐名股东不能排除强制执行所依据的利益衡量和司法政策及价值导向的理由进行回应。最后,在以上论述的基础上提出完善的建议,提出可以在立法中细化规定隐名股东可以排除强制执行、规定商事外观主义的适用范围,并对股权善意取得制度保护的第三人的范围进行界定,同时提出,可以选择信托制度代替股权代持,以期能够提出一个参考思路,并对解决本文的问题有所裨益。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the beginning of the new century,China’s economy has developed rapidly.In the field of commercial affairs,it is common for equity to be held by others on behalf of it.Among them,the issue of enforcement of equity on behalf of equity is very prominent.Because China has not clearly stipulated the aforementioned issues at the legal level,it has led to different cases in the same case in judicial decisions.In this type of case,some judicial authorities have ruled that anonymous shareholders cannot rule out the enforcement of equity in the name of a nominal shareholder based on commercial appearance.Some judicial authorities believe that commercial appearance is not applicable to the enforcement stage of equity.Applicable to transactional behavior,thus supporting anonymous shareholders to rule out enforcement.The purpose of studying this problem is to put forward perfect suggestions for the current disputes in this field.First of all,this article introduces and analyzes typical cases of this issue,elicits the issues to be discussed in this article,and puts forward the viewpoints of this article so that anonymous shareholders can rule out enforcement.At the same time,it sorts out the current academic viewpoints on whether the anonymous shareholders can rule out the enforcement of the court,and elaborates two different views of the current China on the issue of enforcement of equity on behalf of shareholders.The main reasons that anonymous shareholders cannot rule out enforcement are:protection of the external third party’s trust based on commercial appearance,enforcement of licenses based on the principle of good faith and efficiency value,and the pursuit of maximization of personal interests by anonymous shareholders.The risk is at your own risk.The main reasons that anonymous shareholders can exclude enforcement are that commercial appearance does not apply to non-transactional third parties,and from the perspective of the principle of fairness and justice,license enforcement will violate the principle of fairness and justice,and if the court permitsenforcement Enforcement,the execution of the dissent by the outsider as a remedy for the anonymous shareholder will be useless.Secondly,the author analyzes the theory involved in the exclusion and enforcement of equity holdings.In this part,the actual attribution of the holding of equity is introduced in detail.There are mainly formal theories,substance theories,and eclecticism.These three theories have their merits,but they are also inadequate.The views advocated in this article are similar to the eclecticism,which is different from the inside and the outside.The Chinese government holds the same view and follows the autonomy of the will,but in terms of external relations,it is different from the eclectic theory that the industrial and commercial registration is used as the basis for confirming the ownership of the equity.Instead,it should be substantively reviewed because the industrial and commercial registration only has an antagonistic effect.A negative presumption,so if the anonymous shareholder has relevant evidence,the court should determine that the part of the equity belongs to the anonymous shareholder after a substantial review.At the same time,the connotation of commercial appearance and how it is constituted are explained and explained.Based on this,it is clear that the purpose of commercial appearance is to reduce transaction costs and maintain transaction security.Its scope of application should be limited to the field of commercial transactions.The scope of the three is defined,and it is clear that the problem studied in this article does not have room for application of the commercial appearance and equity goodwill acquisition system.It also aims at the court’s decision that the anonymous shareholders cannot rule out the interest measurement and judicial policy and value orientation on which enforcement is based.To respond.Finally,on the basis of the above discussion,a comprehensive proposal is put forward,and it is proposed that the scope of a third party who can specify that anonymous shareholders can exclude enforcement,specify the scope of commercial appearance,and protect the equity of third parties with good faith in the system The definition is made,and at the same time,it is suggested that a trust system can be selected instead of the equity holding,in order to provide a reference idea and be helpful to solve the problems in this article.更多还原