权利外观理论下票据法第三人保护问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 10:20

本文选题：权利外观理论 + 票据善意第三人　；参考：《辽宁大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：自一万多年前人们开始互换多余用品来提高自己生活水平时起，商品经济便一直没有离开人们的生活，其在经历了千万年的发展后，形成了如今这种高效方便的模式。票据作为方便流通的一种交易手段越来越被人们所重视并被极大的应用到日常的中。法律一定要同现实生活紧密相连，这样起到其维护交易秩序，保护交易安全地目的，票据法便在这种大环境下应运而生。票据法从属于商法，是商法中对于特别交易方式的一种规制。而作为商法理论之一的权利外观理论，由于其同样注重流通和交易便捷的性质逐渐的被应用的票据法中来，成为其保护第三人的有效方式之一。权利外观理论是由德国学者创建的，，在本世纪初市场经济极大扩张的时期，权利外观理论被引入。以其在保护交易安全以及善意第三人方面的优势被各国广泛的应用到其票据领域中。权利外观理论在票据法中的具体应用制度体现在票据善意取得及表见代理制度上。针对票据法领域第三人保护问题，现存以下问题：1.我国票据法虽然规定了善意取得制度，但由于其采用“反面解释模式”，即规定了何种情况下持票人不享有票据权利，而反过来的便是适用善意取得的情况，这种规定是推定持票人已经有有效的交付契约存在，强调不必返还票据的状态，而如果之前的交付契约不成立则未有规定。2.我国的民法通则没有规定完备的表见代理制度，票据法中对于表见代理更是只字未提，这种立法的滞后性反映在现实生活中就是经济发展的需要与法律的不完善之间的矛盾，也因此造成这类纠纷在实践处理中的混乱，许多时候票据表见代理便被错误的认定为无权代理。3.在票据背书审查的标准上，我国票据法也没有明确规定，这样同样不利于对于第三人的保护。4.我国票据法将支付对价作为善意取得的一个必备条件，不支付相应的对价即不能善意取得，这样的规定显然是对于制度的一种曲解，亦不利于对于第三人的保护。第一，针对交付契约不成立时，应扩大善意取得适用范围，使善意从无行为能力人、限制行为能力人手中受让票据也应适用于善意取得的制度，这样更有利于保护善意第三人。第二，我国票据法应有针对性的规定票据表见代理制度，包括其适用情形及归责原则，以适应不断加速的票据交易形势，且对票据表见代理制度的法律后果要有明确规定。第三，明确票据背书的审标准，从而减少票据伪造及变造的几率。第四，将支付对价这一要件有条件的从票据善意取得制度中摘除，使该条件不至于被僵化的适用于实际，对此可以参照台湾的做法，规定不支付对价者权利不优于前手为宜。
[Abstract]:Since more than 10,000 years ago when people began to exchange surplus supplies to improve their living standards, the commodity economy has not left people's lives. After thousands of years of development, it has formed this efficient and convenient mode. As a convenient trading method, bills are paid more and more attention to and applied to daily life. The law must be closely connected with the real life so as to maintain the order of transactions and protect the security of transactions. The negotiable instrument law is subordinate to the commercial law and is a kind of regulation of the special transaction way in the commercial law. As one of the theories of commercial law, the theory of right appearance has become one of the effective ways to protect the third party because of its nature of the same emphasis on circulation and convenient transaction in the gradually applied negotiable instrument law. The theory of right appearance was founded by German scholars, and it was introduced in the period of market economy expansion at the beginning of this century. Because of its advantages in the protection of transaction security and bona fide third parties, it has been widely used in the field of bills. The application of the theory of right appearance in the negotiable instrument law is embodied in the system of bona fide acquisition and apparent agency. With regard to the issue of the protection of third parties in the field of negotiable instrument law, the existing problem is as follows: 1. Although the system of bona fide acquisition is stipulated in our country's negotiable instrument law, because it adopts the mode of "reverse interpretation", that is, under what circumstances the bearer does not enjoy the right to the instrument, and the reverse is the case of the application of bona fide acquisition. This provision presumes the existence of a valid contract of delivery by the holder, emphasizing that the state of return of the instrument is not necessary, and that if the previous contract of delivery is not established, there is no provision for .2. The general principles of civil law in our country do not provide for a complete system of apparent agency, and the apparent agency is not mentioned in the negotiable instrument law. The lag of this legislation is reflected in the contradiction between the need of economic development and the imperfection of the law in real life. As a result, this kind of disputes in the practice of the confusion, many times bill as the agent will be wrongly recognized as the unauthorized agent. 3. In the standard of the bill endorsement examination, our country negotiable instrument law also does not have the explicit stipulation, this also is unfavorable to the third party protection. 4. Consideration is regarded as a necessary condition of bona fide acquisition in our country's negotiable instrument law. Without payment of consideration, we cannot obtain it in good faith. This provision is obviously a misinterpretation of the system and is not conducive to the protection of the third party. First, when the delivery contract is not established, the scope of bona fide acquisition should be expanded, so that the bona fide person can not act, and the transfer instrument should be applied to the system of bona fide acquisition, which is more conducive to the protection of bona fide third party. Second, our country's negotiable instrument law should have the pertinence stipulation bill apparent agency system, including its application situation and the imputation principle, in order to adapt to the continuously accelerating bill transaction situation, and the legal consequence of the bill apparent agency system should have the explicit stipulation. Thirdly, the standard of bill endorsement should be defined so as to reduce the probability of bill forgery and alteration. Fourth, the conditional condition of payment for consideration is removed from the system of bona fide acquisition of bills, so that the condition will not be rigidly applied to practice. In view of this, it is appropriate to refer to Taiwan's practice and stipulate that the right of non-payment of consideration is not superior to that of the former.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】