股东知情权之“不正当目的”研究  

A Study on the“Improper Purpose”of Shareholder’s Right to Know

作　　者：邹俊怡 ZOU Junyi(Soochow University,Suzhou Jiangsu 215000)

机构地区：[1]苏州大学王健法学院,江苏苏州215000

出　　处：《浙江万里学院学报》2022年第6期49-56,共8页Journal of Zhejiang Wanli University

摘　　要：股东知情权是一项法律赋予股东的基本权利。《公司法》第33条赋予了股东知情权也对权利行使做出了一定限制。该条款在实际运用中就“不正当目的”的运用存在不少纠纷。为了解释“不正当目的”这一含糊不清的概念,谨防公司乱扣“不正当目的”帽子,《公司法解释四》第8条在兜底条款前列举了竞业经营冲突、商业间谍、商业间谍前科这三类应当认定股东具有“不正当目的”的情形。司法解释的出台部分解决了司法实践中“不正当目的”判断标准不具体、操作性差的问题,但是也同样存在用词不明确、需要再解释的不足。对此,应当进一步明确司法解释中关于“实质性竞争关系”的界定,并在审判中引入比例原则以平衡公司、股东之间的利益。The shareholders’right to know is a fundamental right granted to shareholders by law.Article33 of the Company Law grants shareholders the right to know and also imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of the right.In practice,there have been many disputes regarding the application of“improper purpose”in this provision.In order to explain the ambiguous concept of“improper purpose”and to prevent the company from being indiscriminately labeled as“improper purpose”,Article 8 of the Fourth Judicial Interpretation of the Company Law lists three categories of business competition conflicts,commercial espionage,and prior commercial espionage before the underwriting clause.The shareholders are considered to have“improper purpose”.The introduction to the judicial interpretation partly solved the judicial practice of the“improper purpose”such as the judgment standard is not specific and the poor operability of the judgement standard.Meanwhile,there are also unclear terms need to explain.In this regard,the definition of“substantial competitive relationship”in the judicial interpretation should be further clarified,and the principle of proportionality should be introduced in the trial to balance the interests of the company and shareholders.

关 键 词：股东知情权 不正当目的 实质性竞争 比例原则 

分 类 号：D912.29[政治法律—民商法学]