论抵押权顺位升进主义与固定主义之选择

发布时间：2018-08-21 13:01

【摘要】：众所周知,抵押权制度对保证债权实现极为重要,对促进资金流通意义非凡。由抵押权制度而衍生的一物数押问题在社会中屡见不鲜。而一物数押必然会在抵押权上产生不同的次序,这一次序对于担保债权和资金流通尤为重要,同时,为了实现公正公平,保证各债权人和债务人的利益平衡,各国在两种立法模式上存在取舍:顺位升进主义和固定主义。如上所述,本文拟从抵押权顺位问题的产生入手,重点分析顺位升进主义和固定主义的理论优劣与代表性国家的立法现状,进而探究我国的法律体系当中采用顺位升进主义模式的适用优势与不足。通过对法国、日本、德国和瑞士等国立法的学习与借鉴,研究当下我国抵押权顺位制度的完善意见。本文从引言插入,在正文重点探讨顺位问题,以结语收尾,总共分成这三个部分。引言部分从抵押权顺位的一物数押现象入手,对各国立法例中两种模式的立法现状进行综述。接下来在正文部分,先重点分析重复抵押的合理性问题,这是抵押权顺位问题产生的缘由;之后分析升进主义与固定主义制度的设计以及这两类立法例在运行中的优势及其弊端,重点讨论以法、日两国为主的顺位升进主义立法例和以德国的所有人抵押制度和瑞士的空白担保位置制度为典型的顺位固定主义立法例的实行状况,并从利益衡量的角度加以评析。重点论述德瑞法日四国立法实例,是为了从中学习到一些先进的经验,以期对我国模式的选择和修正起到一定的借鉴意义。最后,从清末《大清民律草案》的制定到民国立法,再到新中国成立之初的立法沿袭,论述当下我国顺位制度实务适用和学术论证的现状。在新时代下,无论是升进主义还是固定主义,其实本身都有利有弊。只要重视并保护当事人的自由意思表示,在一定限度上两种模式就都能发挥不错的表现。同时鉴于我国对顺位升进主义的相关立法传统,本文认为:我国应当坚持抵押权顺位升进主.义,并通过法条对这一模式进行明确化规范。同时,针对我国顺位升进存在之不足,借鉴其他国家的立法实践,提出相应的完善对策。
[Abstract]:As we all know, the mortgage system is very important to guarantee the realization of creditor's rights and to promote the circulation of funds. It is common in society that the mortgage system derives from the issue of a number of pledges in one thing. In order to achieve fairness and equity and ensure the balance of interests between creditors and debtors, there are two kinds of legislative modes in different countries: progressive and fixed. As mentioned above, this paper intends to start with the emergence of mortgage priority, focusing on the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of progressive and fixed doctrine and the legislative status of representative countries. Through the study and reference of legislation in France, Japan, Germany and Switzerland, this paper studies the perfection opinions of the current mortgage priority system in China. The preface begins with the phenomenon of the number of mortgages in the order of mortgage, and then summarizes the legislative status quo of the two modes in the legislation of various countries. The design of the system and the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of legislation in operation are discussed. The implementation of the ordinal progressive legislation mainly based on France and Japan and the ordinal fixed legislation typically based on German owner mortgage system and Switzerland's blank guarantee position system are mainly discussed. The implementation of the ordinal fixed legislation is also discussed from the perspective of interests measurement. This paper mainly discusses the legislative examples of the four countries in order to learn some advanced experience from them, so as to play a certain reference to the choice and amendment of our model. Finally, from the formulation of the draft Civil Law of the late Qing Dynasty to the legislation of the Republic of China, and then to the legislative succession at the beginning of the founding of New China, it discusses the current system of China's priority system. In the new era, both ascensionism and fixed doctrine have their own advantages and disadvantages. As long as we attach importance to and protect the free expression of the will of the parties, the two modes can play a good role in a certain extent. The article holds that China should adhere to the principle of orderly ascension of mortgage, and make clear and standardize this mode through laws and regulations. At the same time, in view of the shortcomings of orderly ascension in our country, we should draw lessons from the legislative practice of other countries and put forward corresponding countermeasures to improve it.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2

【相似文献】