Empirical Research On The Judicial Dissolution System Of Companies

As the most active subject of the market economy,the company undertakes many social responsibilities such as promoting economic development,creating jobs and maintaining social stability.However,from the perspective of the purpose of the company’s initial establishment,meeting the needs of shareholders to participate in the operation and management of the company and continuously creating wealth for shareholders are the company’s main responsibility.If the fundamental purpose of shareholders cannot be achieved due to the company’s management deadlock or oppression by other shareholders,and shareholders’ pursuit of withdrawal from the company is frequently blocked,it is particularly important for judicial intervention in the dissolution of the company.However,due to the principle and ambiguity of the legislative expression,the difficult problems of how to define the company’s operation and management in practice,such as serious difficulties and the continuous survival will cause significant losses to the interests of shareholders,have caused great inconvenience to the trial work of the judicial organs in our country in a conservative manner.In this regard,this paper adopts the method of empirical research.Through the typical and graphical analysis of a certain number of sample cases,it pays attention to the practical pattern and utility of the company’s judicial dissolution,summarizes the specific problems reflected in the analysis results,and then carries out judicial systems.This article is divided into five parts.The first part of the article mainly introduces the research background,research value,research content and research focus of this article,and summarizes the research methods to be used and puts forward innovative points according to relevant domestic research and foreign development trends.The second part of the article finds out the problems existing in the judicial application of China’s company’s judicial dissolution system through empirical research.This part takes 200 randomly screened judgments as the analysis object.Through the characteristics of the company involved,the basic situation of the ruling shareholders involved,and the court’s judgment is quantitatively unified from different angles.Through calculation analysis,it forms an intuitive understanding of the actual pattern of judicial dissolution of the company,and draws corresponding conclusions.The third part of the article,on the basis of empirical research,makes a comprehensive analysis of China’s judicial dissolution system from the level of legal norms and judicial practice,and summarizes that the problems of the system mainly focus on the qualification of the plaintiff,the reasons for dissolution,alternative relief and degree control.Specifically,the legislative purpose embodied in the legal provisions has not been accurately understood by practitioners,resulting in suppressed shareholders not being allowed to seek relief,leading to the embarrassment of the company’s dissolution dispute case in judicial practice.The fourth part of the article discusses and reflects on the theoretical basis of the judicial dissolution system.First of all,it briefly reviews and sorts out the company’s compulsory liquidation order,the predecessor of the judicial dissolution system,and the development context of China’s judicial dissolution system;and then analyzes the two most controversial theories of the current judicial dissolution system.In order to correct its one-sided misunderstanding at the theoretical roots,correctly understand and apply the company’s judicial dissolution system,and find more reliable solutions to the system and application problems.In view of the specific problems in the above-mentioned judicial practice,combined with relevant legislation and judicial jurisprudence of different countries and regions and the constructive research of domestic scholars,the article puts forward a number of suggestions for improving laws and judicial policy respectively,with a view to promoting the benign development of the company’s judicial dissolution litigation system.