公司司法解散的实例分析-经济法学专业论文.docx

1 1 2 2 Abstract In the modern limited liability companys operation, there are company deadlock sometimes. Seek to resolve the deadlock on is becoming a reality of company law issue. The introduction of the system of judicial dissolution of the company to break the deadlock, has its necessity and reality.But pay attention that the company deadlock isn’t certainly equal to the judicial dissolution. On the one hand, as company deadlock is only one type of dispute that the system of judicial dissolution of company to resolve. On the other hand, even if a company deadlock, the ultimate result of judicial intervention is not necessarily lead to the judicial dissolution of the company. Since Chinas old Company Law in the absence of the system of judicial dissolution of company, courts are normally refused thereby upon the non-existence of stipulation of relevant statutes. Article 183 of Company Law, which was amended in 2005, filled the vacuum in legislation for judicial dissolution of company, and opens the door for cases relating to disputes between shareholders of corporate management.However, as Chinas Company Law is newly amended, there is only one relevant provision therein,which is more than general, with the judiciary should not interfere with internal contradictions and conflicts between the shareholders of this issue. Both jurisprudential circle and judiciary has been long hesitant to intervene in shareholders’ disputes on the grounds that judicial intervention could easily become judicial infringement of internal affairs of company, all of these make judges facing many difficulties when they fulfill their judicial duty of “interpretation of the law”. It is still very difficult to reflect the effectiveness and timeliness of justice. The essay strives to study the practical problems of the company’s judicial dissolution on the basis of former research. Based on how the judiciary correctly interpret the perspective of the Company Law 183, the essay contains th