Research On The Judicial Application Of The Accelerated Expiration System Of Shareholder's Capital Contribution Obligation

“Company Law” has been amended in 2003,and the capital system of company is transformed to a completely subscription system.Since then,shareholders can freely agree on the amount and the period of capital contribution,which strengthens the autonomy of shareholders.Deregulation of administration control is one of the major initiatives to enhance market vitality.However,it should be noted that safety is one of the most indispensable values of efficient market economy.When the system design is beneficial to one party,the other party might be negatively impacted.New issues have arisen in transaction security due to the overly loose capital system.In practice,there have been a large number of cases that the company cannot pay off the debts due when the shareholder's capital contribution period has not expired.Under such circumstances,how could creditors protect their own interests? It is also a question that under the normal existence of the company if creditors could request shareholders to fulfill their capital contribution obligations in advance through litigation,even shareholders' capital contribution period has not expired.Due to the lack of legislation,there is not only a theoretical controversy,but the judicial department's understanding of this issue is also inconsistent,which discrepancy of judgment is involved in a same case.Based on such actual situations,this paper takes a real case in practice,"Hongye v.Haoda" as an example,to analyze the judicial application of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation,and to explore the legitimacy,legal basis and specific applicable rules of judicial application,with a view to unifying judicial standards.In addition to the introduction,five parts are involved in this paper:The first part is the brief introduction of the case "Hongye v.Haoda" and associated legal issues.By comparing the first-instance and the second-instance judgments,the focus of dispute is summarized and the subject of this article is introduced(i.e.the judicial application of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation).The second part is an overview of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation.This part mainly introduces the concept,nature of responsibility and legal basis of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation.Relevant concepts to be discussed in this case analysis is clarified,which provides a theoretical basis for its application.The third part is the applicable legitimacy of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation.The judgments of the first and second instances of this case are combined in this part.It primarily argues against the objections in the judicial application,followed by the elaboration on the affirmative opinions.Conclusively,the superiority of this system in the judicial application is summarized.The fourth part is the legal basis of judicial application of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder's capital contribution obligation.Legal provisions are analyzed from the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment in this case.With the support of the judicial practice,evaluations and analysis are made towards the relevant existing legal systems of China.Deficiencies of legal provisions are identified and suggestions for improvement are presented.The fifth part is the specific applicable rules for the accelerated expiration system of shareholder 's capital contribution obligation.Based on the specific circumstances of this case,this part analyzes the specific rules of the application of the accelerated expiration system of shareholder's capital contribution obligation from four aspects,which are subject qualification,preconditions,burden of proof and responsibility,and it is aimed to improve specific system constructions and to enhance the operability of judicial applications.