论文总字数：20519字

摘 要

2016年12月最高院原则性通过《公司法司法解释四》，在第四部分共二十二条规范了股权转让纠纷，使相关案件更具有可操作性。本文以有限责任公司的优先购买权为切入点来分析优先购买权在实践中的发现、问题的解决以及发展趋势。

本文第一部分从实证角度入手，对优先购买权相关案件审理状况的概括与分析，从众多案件中剥离部分典型案件讨论，重点以北京新奥特公司诉华融公司股权转让合同纠纷一案为典型，以杜孝君与夏曙萍股权转让纠纷一案、四川京龙公司与简阳三岔湖公司、刘贵良及成都星展公司成都锦荣公司、成都锦云公司、成都思珩公司股权转让纠纷一案与广东黄河实业集团有限公司与北京然自中医药科技发展中心一般股权转让侵权纠纷案为特殊案件。从典型案件中发现优先购买权的法律性质并未成为裁判依据、行使期限不明确等问题，从特殊案件中发现同等条件标准的混乱等问题，在问题发现之基础上，又分析出各法院在审理各种疑难案件之合同效力方面的共通观点。

第二部分承接第一部分的问题，从理论角度入手，以司法解释四为视角，分析问题在法律层面的现状与处理模式。司法解释四明确优先购买权行使之同等条件与期限之确定，但未明确其基本之法律性质，未改变优先购买权制度基础架空之局面，也未细致规范原股权转让协议效力及责任承担问题。因此从学术层面分析其性质，以实践中各法院的审理标准分析原合同效力问题。通过对比学术界期待权、请求权以及形成权等学说的各方面法律特征，得出优先购买权之法律性质为形成权之结论。实践中各法院形成原股权转让协议在不存在合同法禁止之内容的前提下有效的通认审理观点，此观点符合合同法与公司法的观念，笔者支持。

第三部分在第一部分优先购买权行使问题层出不穷与第二部分法律与理论界致力于问题解决与制度理念架构的前提下，从法律的发展层面阐释优先购买权存在的必要性以反驳“优先购买权应当废除”之观点，并对其发展趋势进行展望，得出在经济发展高速各主体自身权利意识增强的今日，优先购买权行使所带来的各种问题可以通过当事人自身行为规避的观点，法律应从监管走向自治，发挥资本逐利性的特点，使私法自治契约自由逐渐代替国家监管。

关键词：股东优先购买权；请求权；期待权；形成权

Abstract

In December 2016, the supreme court adopted the law of the judicial interpretation of company law of the supreme court. in the fourth part, 22 articles regulate the dispute of equity transfer and make the relevant cases more operable. This paper analyzes the discovery, problem solving and development trend of preemptive right in practice with the priority purchase right of limited liability company.

In the first part of this paper, from the empirical point of view, the summary and analysis of cases of priority purchase right related cases, from a number of typical cases discussed, focusing on the case of Beijing new Ott and xiashuping equity transfer dispute case, Jing Long company and San Cha lake company, Chengdu DBS company, Chengdu Jinyun company, Chengdu think industrial group co., ltd and Guangdong yellow river industrial group co., ltd and Beijing however development center of traditional Chinese medicine science and technology development center. From the typical cases, the legal nature of the preemptive right is not the basis of the decision, the exercise duration is not clear, etc. from the special case to find the disorder of the same conditions, on the basis of the problem, it also analyzes the common views of the court in the contract effectiveness of various difficult cases.

The second part to undertake the first part of the problem, from the theoretical perspective, with the perspective of judicial interpretation, analysis of the problem in the legal level of the status and processing mode. The judicial interpretation of the four clear priority of the purchase of the right to exercise the same conditions and deadlines, but did not clear its basic legal nature, did not change the priority of the purchase system infrastructure, also did not carefully regulate the effectiveness of the original equity transfer agreement and the responsibility to bear the problem. Therefore, from the academic level to analyze its nature, to practice the court trial standards to analyze the effectiveness of the original contract. By comparing the legal characteristics of the right to expect, the right of claim and the right of formation, the legal nature of the preemptive right is the conclusion of the right of formation. In practice, the court forms the original equity transfer agreement without the existence of the content of the contract law, which is valid through the cognizance trial viewpoint, this view accords with the concept of contract law and company law, the author supports.

The third part in the first part of the exercise of the right of preemption and the second part of the legal and theoretical framework, from the perspective of law and theory, from the perspective of the development of law, explain the necessity of the existence of the right of preemption to refute the " right of preemption should be abolished ", and look forward to its development trend, the author concludes that in the economic development of high speed, the right to exercise the various problems can be evaded by the views of the parties, the law should from regulation to autonomy, to make the freedom of autonomy of private law gradually replace the state supervision.

Key words：pre-emptive right of shareholders；right of claim；right to expect；right of formation

目 录

一、最高人民法院判例中的问题 2

（一）优先购买权的法律性质并未成为裁判依据 4

（二）优先购买权之行使期限不明确 4

1、优先购买权开始行使的时间点难以确定 4

2、优先购买权行使的最长时间混乱 4

（三）优先购买权同等条件中股价确定标准的混乱 5

1、股价确定遵循标准模糊 5

2、故意标高转让价，阻碍优先购买权的行使 6

（四）优先购买权行使之合同上的效果 7

二、征求意见稿及相关理论分析 7

（一）优先购买权之法律性质为形成权 7

1、请求权说 7

2、期待权说 8

3、形成权说 9

（二）优先购买权的行使期限 10

1、期间：办理股权变更登记后一年或两年 10

2、目的：维护公司人合性与第三人利益 10

（三）同等条件标准之确定 11

1、股权转让价格采用中介认定 11

2、结合当事人的情况、股权数量以及履行方式等综合确定 12

（四）优先购买权行使之合同上效果的确定 12

1、原股权转让协议成立有效 12

2、不能存在合同法中规范的无效情形 13

三、优先购买权之趋势与展望 13

结语 15

参考文献 16

致 谢 17

一、最高人民法院判例中的问题

优先购买权相关案件中，最值得讨论的为北京新奥特公司诉华融公司股权转让合同纠纷一案。

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：20519字