论破产程序中债权确认的方式

发布时间：2018-05-30 00:25

本文选题：破产债权 + 债权确认　；参考：《上海交通大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：相较于试行的企业破产法,我国新破产法的制定实施,在规范企业破产程序上已经取得很好的成效,新法本身也修正了试行法中的许多不合理之处。但企业破产法实施以来,实践中真正进入破产程序的企业很少,实践操作中也确实面临各种各样意想不到的困境,这些都给我国破产法提出新的立法挑战。破产程序开始后的第一道关卡便是破产债权的确认,无论是破产清算、破产重整还是破产和解程序,都要对破产债权先行确认,破产债权的确认也是债权人取得相应表决权的前提。可以说,破产债权的确认对于破产程序而言具有非比寻常的意义,也是正式影响各方权利义务关系的重要环节。因此本文针对破产债权确认中存在的困惑与建议进行论述和探讨。破产债权的确认,无非分为无异议破产债权的确认与有异议破产债权的确认两类。相较于普通民商法中债权的确认分为自认与诉讼确认两种方式,笔者认为无异议破产债权的确认类似于自认,而有异议破产债权的确认则大致与普通的诉讼确认相当。正是基于这样的分类,本文第一部分对整体行文布局与研究思路作出说明,第二部分针对无异议破产债权确认中实质审查权归属问题、债权人会议表决问题等进行探讨,第三部分则从有异议破产债权的确认之诉面临的起诉条件、程序特别条款、判决效力等多方面进行论述,提出自己的见解与建议。在内容侧重上,因无异议破产债权的确认并不涉及实体的争议处理,相反有异议债权的诉讼确认途径的设计更有利于矛盾解决,加速破产程序的完成,同时理论界针对后者的争论一直较多,实践中对破产债权确认之诉的审理也有许多创新,故本文对后者进行了更为详尽的论述。在研究方式上,本文一方面参照各国在关键问题上不同的法律规则,对比各国自身不同的立法体例,研究我国是否可以参照别国的破产法进行完善;另一方面通过对比法律条文与实践操作,在合规的前提下,提出基于实务创新的立法建议。虽然本文尚未对破产债权确认方式进行面面俱到的论述,但笔者希望本文能为正在酝酿的破产法司法解释,甚至是未来的破产法修正案提供一定建议和帮助,以有助于我国破产立法的完善。
[Abstract]:Compared with the experimental enterprise bankruptcy law, the establishment and implementation of the new bankruptcy law in our country has achieved good results in standardizing the enterprise bankruptcy procedure, and the new law itself has amended many unreasonable points in the trial law. However, since the implementation of the enterprise bankruptcy law, few enterprises have actually entered the bankruptcy procedure in practice, and they are indeed facing a variety of unexpected difficulties in practical operation. All of these put forward new legislative challenges to the bankruptcy law of our country. The first hurdle after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings is the recognition of bankruptcy claims. Whether it is bankruptcy liquidation, bankruptcy reorganization or bankruptcy settlement proceedings, the bankruptcy claims must be recognized first. The recognition of bankruptcy creditor's rights is also the premise of creditor's obtaining corresponding voting rights. It can be said that the recognition of bankruptcy claims is of extraordinary significance to the bankruptcy proceedings, and it is also an important link that formally affects the relationship between the rights and obligations of all parties. Therefore, this paper discusses and discusses the puzzles and suggestions in the confirmation of bankruptcy claims. The recognition of bankruptcy creditor's rights is divided into two types: the recognition of non-dissenting bankruptcy claims and the confirmation of dissenting bankruptcy claims. Compared with the recognition of claims in ordinary civil and commercial law, the author thinks that the recognition of non-dissenting bankruptcy claims is similar to that of self-admission, while the confirmation of dissenting bankruptcy claims is roughly equivalent to that of ordinary litigation. Based on this classification, the first part of this paper explains the overall layout and research ideas. The second part discusses the ownership of substantive review rights in the confirmation of non-objection bankruptcy claims, the voting of creditors' meetings, and so on. The third part discusses the lawsuit condition, the special clause of procedure, the validity of judgment and so on, and puts forward its own opinions and suggestions. On the other hand, the confirmation of non-dissenting bankruptcy claims does not involve the dispute resolution of the entity. On the contrary, the design of the way to confirm the dissenting claims is more conducive to resolving conflicts and speeding up the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings. At the same time, there have been many arguments in the theoretical circle on the latter, and there are many innovations in the trial of the confirmation of bankruptcy claims in practice, so this paper makes a more detailed discussion on the latter. On the one hand, this paper refers to the different legal rules on the key issues, contrasts the different legislative styles of each country, studies whether our country can refer to the other countries' bankruptcy law to perfect; On the other hand, by comparing the legal provisions with the practical operation, under the premise of compliance, the legislative proposals based on practical innovation are put forward. Although there is no comprehensive discussion on the way of confirming bankruptcy creditor's rights in this paper, the author hopes that this paper can provide some suggestions and help for the judicial interpretation of bankruptcy law that is brewing, and even for the future amendment of bankruptcy law. In order to help improve our bankruptcy legislation.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.291.92

【相似文献】