富兴担保公司诉君山农信联社票据损害赔偿纠纷案例分析

发布时间：2018-07-09 09:35

本文选题：票据无因性 + 票据关系　；参考：《湖南大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着我国社会主义市场经济体系的不断发展和完善,票据日益成为社会经济活动中不可或缺的金融工具各类票据纠纷也呈现出不断上升的趋势。《中华人民,共和国票据法》自1996年正式实施以来对于规范票据行为,指导票据活动及,,时、准确处理票据纠纷提供了可靠的法律保障。在司法实践中如何更加清晰有效,地界定票据关系与票据基础关系、熟练准确地分析和确认票据效力、确认票据当事人行为是否违法并公平合理地计量由此所带来的票据损害赔偿责任大小,是处理票据纠纷案件、防范票据业务风险急需解决的现实问题。在富兴担保公司诉君山农信联社票据损害赔偿案中,富兴担保公司认为君山农信联社违法承付与预留印鉴不符的无效支票造成了富兴担保公司800万元存款流失随将君山农信联社告,,上法庭请求判定君山农信联社赔偿其损失。围绕案由、涉案支票效力以及承付行,为是否违法等争议焦点,历经一审、二审和三次再审过程,最高人民法院最终判定君山农信联社不承担赔偿责任,驳回富兴担保公司的诉讼请求。正确处理本案的关键在于区分票据关系和票据基础关系,正确认识票据无因性原则的内涵及其相对性。本案之所以历经五次审理,就在于审判人员对票据原理和票据法存在理解和认识上的差异,在适用法律上出现偏差。作为司法审判人员和金融行业从业者,均应该从法理角度和市场管理角度思考票据无因性原则的法律适用和票据业务风险防范措施,以维护票据当事人的合法权益和金融秩序的稳定。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development and improvement of the socialist market economy system in China, the disputes over various kinds of bills, which are increasingly becoming indispensable financial instruments in social and economic activities, are also showing a rising trend. < Chinese people, Since its implementation in 1996, the Bill Law of the Republic has provided a reliable legal guarantee for standardizing the bill behavior, guiding the bill activities and handling the bill disputes accurately. In judicial practice, how to define the relationship between bills and the basic relationship of bills, and how to analyze and confirm the validity of bills skillfully and accurately, It is an urgent problem to deal with the bill dispute cases and to prevent the business risks of bills to be solved to confirm whether the behavior of the parties to the bill is illegal and to measure the liability of the bill damage compensation fairly and reasonably. In the case of Fuxing Guaranty Company v. Junshan Peasant letter Association bill damages, The Fuxing guarantee Company considered that the invalid check which was not in accordance with the reserve seal illegally committed by Junshan Rural Credit Union resulted in the loss of 8 million yuan deposit of the Fuxing guarantee Company and sued Junshan Rural Credit Union, and went to court to claim that Junshan Rural Credit Union would compensate for its loss. Around the cause of the case, the validity of the cheque involved and the commitment of the bank, and in order to determine whether or not to violate the law, the Supreme people's Court finally decided that Junshan Rural Credit Union would not be liable for compensation after the process of first, second and third retrial. To reject the suit of Fuxing guarantee Company. The key to deal with the case correctly lies in distinguishing the bill relationship from the basic one, and correctly understanding the connotation and relativity of the principle of the non-causality of the bill. The reason why the case went through five trials is that the judges have different understanding and understanding of the principle of instruments and the law of instruments, and there are deviations in the application of the law. As judicial judges and financial practitioners, they should consider the legal application of the principle of non-causality of bills and the risk prevention measures of bill business from the point of view of legal theory and market management. In order to maintain the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the bill and the stability of the financial order.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.287

【相似文献】