债权人撤销权制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-18 20:03

本文选题：债权人撤销权 + 性质　；参考：《中国政法大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 随着商品经济日趋发达,商品交换逾是频繁。在商品交换繁荣的背后,不少人出于各种各样的原因,有意或无意地破坏着交易的安全,在一定程度上阻碍了市场经济的发展。这就需要完整的规则或规范来保障商品的交换及其信誉安全,于是产生了撤销权制度。尽管我国《合同法》及相关司法解释已经对债权人撤销权制度做了规定,但是该制度在现实经济生活中的适用,凸现出诸多问题,诸如对法律条文理解各异、司法实践缺乏统一的法律依据等。因此,只有更系统、完整地理解撤销权制度,才能为立法和司法实践提供一个更为准确、合理、适应现实经济生活的理论依据和法律依据。本文共分为四部分: 第一部分从考察债权人撤销权制度的历史沿革出发,对债权人撤销权制度的起源以及欧洲各国对其的立法现状做考察,并对我国债权人撤销权制度的立法历程及现状进行了分析。介绍了有关债权人撤销权的性质的各种学说,笔者赞同折衷说,认为债权人撤销权是一项实体权利,与债权具有不可分性。形成权是撤销权的根基,请求权是行使撤销权的结果。接着通过将撤销权制度与民事行为的撤销权、破产法上的撤销权、债权人代位权等相关制度进行比较,以体现债权人撤销权制度的特征。第二部分从客观要件和主观要件两方面分析债权人撤销权的构成要件。客观要件包括债权人债权合法有效、债务人实施了处分财产行为、债务人的行为有害债权。在主观方面,只要债务人知道处分财产的行为将导致其无资力清偿债务,从而有害于债权人债权,仍实施该行为,足以表明债务人具有恶意;只要受益人知道是以明显不合理的低价转让的,就可推断其具有主观恶意。第三部分详细论述了如何行使撤销权。主要对债权人撤销权的行使方式、主体、范围、期间及效力进行了分析。第四部分在上文论述的基础上,指出我国现行债权人撤销权制度的不足:行使撤销权的范围比较窄;传统的“入库规则”限制了撤销权人的权利;关于诉讼当事人地位的确定存在缺陷,只规定受益人或者受让人可作为第三人。并对我国相关立法完善提出建议。
[Abstract]:With the development of commodity economy, commodity exchange is frequent. Behind the prosperity of commodity exchange, many people, for various reasons, intentionally or unintentionally undermine the security of the transaction, to some extent hinder the development of the market economy. This requires complete rules or norms to ensure the exchange of goods and the credibility of the security, thus the system of rescission rights. Although China's contract Law and related judicial interpretations have stipulated the system of creditor's right of rescission, the application of this system in real economic life has brought out many problems, such as different understanding of legal provisions. The judicial practice lacks the unified legal basis and so on. Therefore, only a more systematic and complete understanding of the revocation system can provide a more accurate and reasonable theoretical and legal basis for the legislative and judicial practice to adapt to the real economic life. This paper is divided into four parts: In the first part, from the historical evolution of creditor's revocation system, the origin of creditor's revocation right system and the legislative status of European countries are investigated. At the same time, the legislative process and present situation of the creditor's revocation right system in China are analyzed. This paper introduces various theories about the nature of the creditor's right of rescission. The author agrees with the compromise that the creditor's right of rescission is a substantive right and is inseparable from the creditor's right. The right of formation is the foundation of the right of rescission, and the right of claim is the result of exercising the right of revocation. Then by comparing the system of revocation right with the right of revocation of civil act, the right of revocation on bankruptcy law, the right of subrogation of creditor and so on, to reflect the characteristics of the system of revocation right of creditor. The second part analyzes the constitutive elements of creditor's right of rescission from two aspects: objective elements and subjective elements. The objective elements include the validity of creditor's claim, the debtor's disposition of property, and the debtor's harmful behavior. On the subjective side, as long as the debtor knows that the disposition of the property will lead to his inability to pay off debts, which is harmful to the creditor's rights, it is sufficient to show that the debtor is malicious; As long as the beneficiary knows that the transfer was made at an obviously unreasonable price, it can be inferred that it is malicious. The third part discusses in detail how to exercise the right of rescission. This paper mainly analyzes the way, subject, scope, period and effect of creditor's right of rescission. The fourth part points out the deficiency of the current system of creditor's right of rescission in our country on the basis of the discussion above: the scope of exercising the right of revocation is relatively narrow, the traditional rules of entering storehouse restrict the right of cancelling right; With regard to the determination of the litigant's status, only the beneficiary or transferee can be regarded as a third party. And put forward the suggestion to our country related legislation consummation.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】