银行卡被盗刷纠纷案件法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-18 09:55

【摘要】：本文主要讨论法院在审理银行卡被盗刷纠纷案时的裁判思路选择以及相关的法律问题。全文主要分三部分展开:第一部分,思路之争及背后的问题。各地法官在银行卡被盗刷纠纷案件表现出两种不同的裁判思路。一种是较为常见的“单诉思维”,即认为解决此类纠纷只需要持卡人提起一个“损害赔偿之诉”即可。另一种是相对少见的“两诉思维”,即认为解决此类纠纷需要分两个诉讼处理,先在持卡人提起“违约之诉”中解决发卡行拒绝向持卡人支付存款的行为是否构成违约的问题,再在发卡行提起“损害赔偿之诉”解决持卡人对第三人的盗刷行为所致损失是否承担责任的问题。之所以会出现两种不同的裁判思路,其症结在于不同法官对银行卡内资金的权利属性及第三人的盗刷行为造成谁的财产受损等问题存在不同认识。通过对“持卡人对银行卡内资金所享有的权利系‘债权属性’”、“第三人的盗刷行为所侵害的是发卡行的财产权益”及“划分卡内资金损失的责任承担应以发卡行行使请求权为前提”三个问题的论述,本文建议在银行卡被盗刷纠纷案件中选择“两诉思路”。第二部分,关于“违约之诉”的处理,主要讨论对在持卡人向发卡行提起的“违约之诉”中认定发卡行拒绝向持卡人支付存款的行为是否构成违约以及在诉讼实践中的其他相关问题。是否构成违约,无需要考察发卡行的过错,而应聚焦于盗刷人向发卡行发出的付款指令的法律效果,案件争议的核心在于认定发卡行向盗刷行为人的支付行为是否会对持卡人产生债务清偿的效力。依据民法原理,盗刷人发出指令的行为应属于无权代理而做的行为。无权代理人的向第三人发出的代理行为,只有在第三人是善意时才发生约束力。法院的审判应当对该善意是否存在以及不存在时的效果进行判断。对此,笔者建议适用“债权准占有人清偿制度”和表见代理理论来判断发卡行向盗刷人的支付行为对持卡人是否产生债务清偿的法律效果。第三部分,“损害赔偿之诉”的处理,主要讨论在由发卡行向持卡人提起的“损害赔偿之诉”中持卡人对发卡行因第三人盗刷导致的损害是否应承担相应责任以及诉讼实践中的其他问题。法院判断持卡人是否对发卡行因第三人盗刷所致的损害承担赔偿责任,需要考察持卡人对第三人盗刷行为的发生是否有过错。而持卡人的过错认定,涉及发卡行及持卡人在此类交易活动中的注意义务或者对安全保障义务。本文从商事活动的基本原则、诚实信用原则的深化、实现储蓄合同目的之必要保障及社会经济发展的现实需要四个方面论证了安全保障义务是持卡人和发卡行应负的义务,并对安全保障义务的具体内容进行了梳理,主要包括谨慎保密义务、安全防范义务、及时告知义务和积极协助义务。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly discusses the court's choice of judgment ideas and related legal issues in the case of bank card stolen brush dispute. The thesis is divided into three parts: the first part, the argument of train of thought and the problems behind it. Judges around the bank card theft dispute cases show two different ways of adjudication. One is the more common "single-action thinking", that is, the resolution of such disputes only requires the cardholder to file a "compensation for damages" can. The other is the relatively rare "two-suit thinking", that is, to resolve this kind of dispute needs to be dealt with in two lawsuits, first of all, to solve the issue of whether the card issuing bank's refusal to pay a deposit to the cardholder constitutes a breach of contract in the case of a "breach of contract action" filed by the cardholder. The issue of whether the cardholder is liable for the loss caused by the third party's theft of the brush shall be settled by the issuer's action of damages. There are two different ways of judgment, the crux of which lies in the fact that different judges have different understandings on the property of the capital in the bank card and the property damage caused by the theft of the third party. "the rights enjoyed by the cardholder in respect of the funds in the bank card are 'creditor's property'", "the third party's theft infringes upon the property rights and interests of the issuing bank" and "the responsibility to divide the loss of funds in the card should be based on the exercise of the right of claim by the issuing bank". This paper suggests to choose "two-suit thinking" in the case of bank card stolen brush dispute. The second part deals with the action of breach of contract. This paper mainly discusses whether the card issuer's refusal to pay the credit card holder constitutes a breach of contract and other related issues in the litigation practice in the case of "breach of contract" filed by the cardholder to the card issuing bank. Whether the breach constitutes a breach of contract is not necessary to examine the fault of the issuing bank, but should focus on the legal effect of the payment order issued by the person who stole the card to the issuing bank, The core of the case dispute is to determine whether the payment made by the card issuing bank to the person who stole the card will have the effect of paying off the debt to the cardholder. According to the principle of civil law, the act of giving instructions should be an act without power of agency. An act of agency issued by an unauthorized agent to a third party is binding only if the third party is in good faith. The court should judge whether the good faith exists and the effect if it does not exist. In view of this, the author suggests that the "creditor's right quasi-possessor liquidation system" and the apparent agency theory should be applied to judge whether the card issuing bank's payment to the cardholder will produce the legal effect of paying off the debt to the cardholder. The third part, the disposition of "the lawsuit of damages", This paper mainly discusses whether the cardholder should bear the corresponding liability for the damage caused by the third party stealing brush and other problems in the litigation practice in the "compensation for damages" action brought by the issuing bank to the cardholder. The court determines whether the cardholder is liable for the damage caused by the third party's theft of the card, and needs to investigate whether the cardholder has any fault in the occurrence of the third party's theft of the brush. The fault of the cardholder is related to the duty of care or security obligations of the issuer and the cardholder in such transactions. From four aspects: the basic principles of commercial activities, the deepening of the principle of good faith, the necessary protection of the purpose of the savings contract and the realistic needs of social and economic development, this paper demonstrates that the duty of safety and security is the obligation of the cardholder and the issuing bank. And the specific content of the security obligation is combed, including the duty of careful confidentiality, the duty of safety precautions, the obligation to inform in time and the obligation to assist actively.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.281

【相似文献】