Case 1: Although the company did not produce normally and carried out some business activities, it did not fall into the category of "closure" as stipulated in the Company Law (20 16). At the end of line 07 on the 27th, Zheng submitted a tip-off letter to the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce about a company's evasion of the compensation obligation determined by the effective judgment, reflecting that the business license of a company should be revoked by the industrial and commercial department after its closure. In accordance with Article 211 of the Company Law, its business license shall be revoked, and liquidation shall be conducted to protect the interests of creditors. After on-site inspection, evidence collection and inquiry, the defendant's Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce verified that a company's business status was closed on 20 13 and 20 14, and the company was not in normal production, but was carrying out after-sales maintenance services. In response to the report that the business license of a company should be revoked by the industrial and commercial department after its closure, the contents are as follows: After investigation, the situation reflected by a company does not conform to the "unreasonable" situation stipulated in Article 211 of the Company Law, and administrative punishment for revocation should not be given. Zheng, the plaintiff, refused to accept it and filed an administrative reconsideration with the defendant's municipal government, which made a reconsideration decision to maintain the reply. The plaintiff sued the court. The court held that according to Article 211 of the Company Law: "If a company fails to start business for more than six months without justifiable reasons after its establishment, or if it stops business for more than six months after its opening, its business license may be revoked by the company registration authority." Although a company has stopped production, it still continues to provide after-sales service for the machinery it sells, indicating that some business activities have not been interrupted, which does not belong to the "suspension" situation stipulated in the Company Law. Although the plaintiff's claim is not supported, it is still of great significance. After investigation, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce learned that the company did not operate in the approved registered residence, and issued a notice to be ordered to make corrections. In the company's operation, many companies' registered places are inconsistent with the actual business premises. What's more, they "walk away" by infringing on creditors' rights and interests, and are actually in a state of suspension. In order to protect their legitimate rights and interests, it is more difficult for creditors to defend their rights in the face of such companies. If there is indeed a suspension of business, they can also try to request the registration authority to cancel it.
Case 2: Shareholders can apply to revoke the company's business license and then dissolve the company (20 16). At the beginning of line J 027 1, the defendant Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce made a Reply on the Application for Revocation of a Company's Business License, the contents of which are as follows: Apply to our bureau for revocation of the company's business license, and according to Article 211 of the Company Law, "The company has been established for more than six months without justifiable reasons, and Article 22 of the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Enterprise as a Legal Person:" After the enterprise as a legal person obtains the Business License of Enterprise as a legal person, "The provisions of the provincial bureau for instructions, the applicant shall submit proof materials that" it has not been opened for more than six months without justifiable reasons, or it has not been opened for more than six consecutive months after opening "or" it has not been opened for six consecutive months or stopped operating for 1 year ". However, up to now, there is no uniform standard for the certification materials that should be submitted by the applicant by the provincial and local industrial and commercial departments, that is, it is impossible to judge and confirm whether the company is in a situation of "not opening for more than six months without justifiable reasons or not opening for more than six consecutive months after opening" or "not opening for six months or closing down 1 year", and it is difficult to implement. The plaintiff Wang claimed that he and Wei jointly registered and established a company and served as the legal representative of the company. Due to poor management, the company stopped engaging in any business activities at the end of 2009. Since then, the company seal has been lost and the company has not been cancelled. Due to the need of work, the plaintiff applied to the defendant to cancel the company, but the defendant did not allow it. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, demanding that the defendant be ordered to revoke the reply to the application for revocation of the company's business license according to law. 2. Order the defendant to revoke the company's business license. The court held that according to Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the defendant bears the burden of proof for administrative acts and should provide evidence for administrative acts. If the defendant fails to provide evidence, it shall be deemed that there is no corresponding evidence. Regarding the plaintiff's application for revocation of the company's business license and the defendant's administrative action "Reply on the Application for Revocation of the Company's Business License", the defendant bears the burden of proof on the facts on which the accused administrative action is based, that is, whether the company has "failed to open its business for more than six months without justifiable reasons". In the absence of clear investigation evidence, the defendant made the sued administrative act of not revoking the business license. The facts are unclear and the main evidence is insufficient, so it should be revoked according to law. In this case, the plaintiff wanted to "borrow" the registration authority to cancel the company, so as to achieve the purpose of dissolving the company. The plaintiff wanted to dissolve the company because another shareholder was missing, but according to the Company Law, it was difficult to dissolve the company judicially, so the plaintiff had to find another way. If the plaintiff can prove "suspension of business", he can apply for cancellation of the company on this ground to achieve the purpose of dissolving the company.