补充性给付诉讼问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-12 14:32

本文选题：补充性给付 + 特殊法律地位产生的补充性给付　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：民法上的补充性给付实为实体法赋予债权人保障其权利完整实现的重要途径,使债权人在债务人没有财产或者财产不足以清偿债务时,得以请求补充债务人就该未足额部分债务进行补充清偿。补充性给付在类型上依照补充债务人承担责任的原因之不同,可分为特殊法律地位产生的补充性给付和非因特殊法律地位产生的补充性给付。债权人如何才能顺利地通过诉讼使补充债务人承担补充清偿责任,在理论上缺乏足够的讨论。由于严格地遵循实体法的规定,为获得完整的债务清偿,得在前后诉讼中分别起诉主债务人和补充债务人,此举不仅给债权人带来不便,也给法院的司法资源造成极大耗费。因此,为减少权利实现的期间和步骤,当事人往往把主债务人和补充债务人列为共同被告,在同一诉讼程序中主张权利。通过理论分析可以发现,该共同诉讼以主观的预备合并之诉为该诉讼合并的理论前提,并根据补充性给付的不同类型,诉讼标的之法律关系在诉讼程序中表现出单复数之差别,特殊法律地位产生的补充性给付仅是主债务人所承担责任的分担,与主债务同属一个诉讼标的,而其他类型的补充性给付则来源于实体法上另外的请求权,与主债务分属不同诉讼标的,进而两者之共同诉讼在诉讼形态上亦分别呈现出必要共同诉讼和普通共同诉讼之不同。此诉的主观合并已然成为实务上处理补充性给付诉讼的基本途径,虽确有防止裁判抵触、保证纠纷一次解决、节省当事人诉讼成本以及保证原告实体权益等法律效果,但也因此诉讼上的常规操作而面临着诸多现实难题,主要集中表现在未能给补充债务人提供必要的程序保障,由此引发补充债务人缺乏程序参与的自主性、其审级利益遭受侵害并且易受法院财产保全措施侵害等问题。为妥善解决此一系列补充性给付在诉讼上的弊病,本文建议应当区分特殊法律地位产生的补充性给付和其他类型的补充性给付,以提出相应的建设性构想。一方面,对于前者,有必要扩张债权人所得主债务之确定判决的执行力,使该效力直接及于补充债务人的固有财产,债权人不必为了取得对补充债务人的执行名义再专门向其提起给付之诉;另一方面,就其他类型的补充性给付案件诉讼所为修补方法,仍应强调补充债务人的诉讼参与,并着眼于重新构建该类型案件的共同诉讼的各个环节,以尽可能兼顾好债权人和补充债务人的切身利益。
[Abstract]:The supplementary payment in the civil law is an important way for the creditor to guarantee the complete realization of his right under the substantive law, so that when the debtor has no property or the property is insufficient to pay off the debt,A supplementary debtor may be requested to replenish and pay off the outstanding part of the debt.The type of supplementary payment can be divided into special legal status supplementary payment and supplementary payment not due to special legal status according to the reasons why the supplementary debtor bears the responsibility.There is a lack of theoretical discussion on how the creditor can smoothly make the supplementary debtor assume the supplementary liability through litigation.In order to obtain complete debt satisfaction, the principal debtor and the supplementary debtor must be sued separately in the litigation, which not only brings inconvenience to the creditors, but also causes great consumption of the judicial resources of the court because of strictly following the provisions of the substantive law.Therefore, in order to reduce the period and steps of the realization of the right, the parties often treat the main debtor and the supplementary debtor as co-defendants and claim their rights in the same proceedings.Through the theoretical analysis, it can be found that the joint action is based on the subjective pre-merger action as the theoretical premise, and according to the different types of supplementary payment, the legal relationship of the subject matter of the lawsuit shows the difference of single and multiplicity in the litigation procedure.The supplementary payment arising from the special legal status is only the share of the liability of the principal debtor and belongs to the same subject of the action as the main debt, while the other types of supplementary payment come from another claim in substantive law.The joint action is different from the main debt in the form of the necessary joint action and the common joint action.The subjective merger of this lawsuit has become the basic way to deal with the supplementary payment litigation in practice. Although it does prevent the conflict of the referee, guarantee the settlement of the dispute once, save the litigant's litigation cost and guarantee the plaintiff's entity's rights and interests, etc.But because of this, the routine operation of litigation is faced with many practical difficulties, which mainly focus on the failure to provide necessary procedural protection to the supplementary debtor, which leads to the lack of autonomy of the supplementary debtor to participate in the procedure.Its trial interests are infringed and vulnerable to court property preservation measures and other issues.In order to properly solve the disadvantages of this series of supplementary payment in litigation, this paper suggests that the special legal status should be distinguished from other types of supplementary payment, in order to put forward the corresponding constructive ideas.On the one hand, for the former, it is necessary to expand the enforcement of the deterministic judgment on the principal debt acquired by the creditor, so that the effect is directly related to the supplement of the debtor's inherent property.The creditor does not have to bring a special action against the supplementary debtor in the name of execution; on the other hand, in the case of other types of supplementary payment cases, it is still important to emphasize the participation of the supplementary debtor in the proceedings,It also focuses on reconstructing the joint action of this type of case in order to balance the vital interests of creditors and supplementary debtors as best as possible.
【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】：D923;D925.1

【相似文献】