论我国非典型担保的立法定位

发布时间：2018-07-01 08:29

本文选题：非典型担保 + 民法典　；参考：《中国社会科学院研究生院》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：从《民法通则》、《担保法》再到《物权法》,我国的担保物权体系已基本形成。但是,担保作为民法制度中最富变化性的法领域,总是先于立法的发展,也最能体现理论与实务的矛盾。《物权法》出台已将近8年,随着市场经济的飞速发展,在担保融资领域早已衍生出大量的与典型担保不同的非典型担保方式,我国现有的担保立法体系已经远不能涵盖实践中出现的各种融资担保的类型。2014年十八届四中全会提出“编纂民法典”,倘若民法典编纂工作正式启动,无疑会对我国现有的,包括担保物权在内的民法体系作出重大调整。非典型担保作为从法典之外从实践中发展起来的担保形态,在物权法定主义之下,的确难以取得担保物权的地位。如何协调实务中大量存在的非典型担保与民法典中规定的典型担保?如何软化民法典,化解法稳定性与变动性的矛盾?如何处理“物权法定主义”与民商事习惯之间的冲突?都是我国编纂民法典过程中不得不考虑的问题。对此,大陆法系国家的立法经验和处理非典型担保的态度和方式确实能为我国民法典的编纂提供有益的借鉴。正是在这个思路之下,笔者开始了论文的写作。本文从非典型担保的概念特征出发,首先分析非典型担保与典型担保的不同之处,又具体列举几种信贷实践中具有代表性的非典型担保的类型。在此基础上,尝试总结梳理大陆法系各国及英美法系国家担保的立法体系,对照发现我国现有的担保物权立法体系存在的问题。最后,通过以让与担保为代表的非典型担保在立法中的取舍问题,论述非典型担保与民法典的协调,拟就我国编纂民法典过程中如何对待非典型担保提供一些思考的方向。我国《物权法》所采取的“物权法定主义之缓和”的立法模式应继续运用于民法典编纂过程中对担保物权体系的制度设计之中,在此基础上,借鉴德国、日本等大陆法系国家对待非典型担保的方式,以民事特别法或者判例的形式将具有代表性的非典型担保加以规范,从而达到软化民法典的效果。
[Abstract]:From "General principles of Civil Law", "Law of Guaranty" to "property Law", the system of real right of security in China has been basically formed. However, as the most variable legal field in the civil law system, the guarantee is always prior to the development of legislation and can best reflect the contradiction between theory and practice. It has been nearly 8 years since the "Real right Law" came into being, with the rapid development of the market economy. In the field of secured financing, a large number of non-typical forms of security have been developed which are different from typical guarantees. The existing legal system of guarantee in our country can no longer cover the types of financing guarantee that appear in practice. In 2014, the fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee put forward "codifying the Civil Code". If the codification of the Civil Code is officially started, it will undoubtedly be of great importance to China. The civil law system, including security interest, has made major adjustments. Atypical security, as a form of security developed from practice outside the code, is indeed difficult to obtain the status of security interest under the doctrine of property law. How to reconcile the large number of atypical guarantees in practice with the typical guarantees stipulated in the Civil Code? How to soften the Civil Code and resolve the contradiction between the stability and variability of law? How to deal with the conflict between "legalism in real right" and the custom of civil and commercial affairs? It is a problem that must be considered in the process of compiling civil code in our country. Therefore, the legislative experience of civil law countries and the attitude and ways to deal with atypical guaranty can provide useful reference for the compilation of civil code of our country. It is under this train of thought that the author begins to write the thesis. Based on the conceptual characteristics of atypical guarantee, this paper first analyzes the difference between atypical guarantee and typical guarantee, and then enumerates several typical types of atypical guarantee in credit practice. On this basis, the author tries to summarize and comb the legal system of security in the countries of civil law system and common law system, and find out the problems existing in the existing legislation system of security right in our country. Finally, this paper discusses the coordination of atypical guarantee and civil code through the choice of atypical guarantee in legislation, and proposes some thinking directions on how to deal with atypical guarantee in the process of compiling civil code in our country. The legislative model of "moderating the doctrine of legalism in real right" adopted by our country's Real right Law should continue to be applied in the system design of the system of security property right in the process of compiling the civil code. On this basis, we should draw lessons from Germany. Japan and other civil law countries treat atypical guaranty in the form of civil special law or case law, which can soften the civil code.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】