论文部分内容阅读
我国目前对于股权转让的善意取得只在公司法司法解释中对显明股东处分实际投资人股份、一股二卖这两种情况进行了规定,指引法官“参照《物权法》第106条”。但通过考察近五年来的法院判决,可以发现司法解释所规定的内容远不能覆盖股权善意取得纠纷情形,大量案件没有可直接适用的规则,法官在判决时经常不引用任何法条,这无疑不利于司法裁判的统一和说服力。而从构成要件来看,法院在具体要件的认定标准上仍存在不一致,这将直接导致“同案不同判”。因此非常有必要具体化相关规定,扩大涵盖范围、统一构成要件,或是以指导性案例的方式更好地统一法院裁判,为商事活动参与者提供行动之音。
At present, the goodwill acquisition of the equity transfer in our country only stipulates the disposition of the actual investors’ shares in the company lawsuit and the sale of the real investor shares in one share, and directs the judge to refer to Article 106 of the Real Right Law. However, by examining the court decisions of the past five years, we can find that the contents stipulated in the judicial interpretation far can not cover the case of equity acquisition. There are no directly applicable rules in a large number of cases. Judges often do not refer to any law in their judgments. Conducive to the unity and persuasion of judicial adjudication. Judging from the constitutional requirements, the courts still have inconsistencies in the criteria for identifying specific requirements, which will directly lead to “different decisions on the same crime”. Therefore, it is very necessary to specify the relevant provisions, expand the scope of coverage, unify elements of constitution, or better unify court judgments in the form of guiding cases so as to provide voice for the participants of commercial activities.