除权判决后“持票人”的权利救济研究

发布时间：2019-07-07 19:33

【摘要】：除权判决,是法院在公示催告程序中作出的一项宣告票据无效的判决。近年来,随着票据在经济活动中的频繁使用,票据纠纷也日趋增长,其中因除权判决引发的纠纷尤为显著。由于现有法律对除权判决后“持票人”的权利救济规定不完善,导致了学界以及司法实务中出现了诸多纷争。本文结合现状进行理论分析得出:究其原因,是因为目前相关法律法规对除权判决的性质及法律效力规定模糊,以及对除权判决后权利救济途径规定不明确,从而导致了学界与司法实务中产生了分歧。为了有效应对此类票据纠纷,规范票据法、民事诉讼法及相关行政法规的规定,更为了高效全面的保护合法持票人的权益,我们很有必要对上述问题进行分析与解答,并对目前存在的不足之处提出合理的完善建议。本文第一部分,引入案例。通过介绍A与B之间的票据纠纷一案,归纳出其中的争议焦点,亦即本文所要讨论的三大问题,分别是:被告获得除权判决后,1、原告作为“持票人”是否还是合法的票据持票人;2、票据权利是否仍然存在;3、原告进行权利救济时提起撤销之诉是否合理。第二部分,考察现状。针对我国除权判决后,“持票人”救济权利时遇到的障碍进行原因分析,具体包括:现有法律制度上的缺陷,学界存在分歧意见,以及司法实务中出现同案不同判的现象三方面。从而引发出我们对除权判决后,“持票人”的法律地位、除权判决对“持票人”权利的影响以及司法救济中“诉”的性质界定等问题的思考。第三部分,亦是本文的重点,主要针对上述焦点提出自己的主张,并重点对自己的以下观点:1、除权判决仅具有形式上的既判力,并不具有实质上的既判力;2、除权判决后,持票人仍为票据权利人,仍享有完整的票据权利;3、除权判决后,票据权利人没有必要提起撤销之诉,目前《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十三条中的“诉”应明确为另行起诉;4、除权判决后,“持票人”提起票据诉讼更为合理等进行论证。最后一部分,完善建议。结合文中归纳出的焦点问题,联系相关原因分析及理论论证,对关于除权判决后“持票人”权利救济的问题,针对现存法律制度上存在的缺陷,提出一些具体可操作的建议。
[Abstract]:The judgment of abrogation is a judgment of annulment of the instrument made by the court in the procedure of public notice. In recent years, with the frequent use of bills in economic activities, bill disputes are increasing day by day, especially the disputes caused by removal of power. Due to the imperfect provisions of the existing law on the relief of the rights of the "holder" after the removal of the power, there have been many disputes in academic circles and judicial practice. Based on the theoretical analysis of the present situation, this paper concludes that the reason is that the relevant laws and regulations are vague in the nature and legal effect of the power removal judgment, as well as the unclear way of right relief after the power removal judgment, which leads to the differences between the academic circles and the judicial practice. In order to deal with this kind of bill disputes effectively, standardize the provisions of bill law, civil procedure law and related administrative regulations, and protect the rights and interests of legitimate ticket holders efficiently and comprehensively, it is necessary for us to analyze and answer the above problems, and to put forward reasonable suggestions for improvement of the existing shortcomings. In the first part of this paper, a case is introduced. By introducing the bill dispute case between A and B, this paper sums up the focus of the dispute, that is, the three major issues to be discussed in this paper are: after the defendant obtains the judgment of removal, 1, whether the plaintiff, as the "holder" of the bill, is still the legal holder of the bill; 2, whether the right of the bill still exists; 3, whether it is reasonable for the plaintiff to file the cancellation claim when the right relief is carried out. The second part examines the present situation. This paper analyzes the reasons for the obstacles encountered in the relief of the right of "ticket holder" after the removal of power judgment in our country, including the defects of the existing legal system, the existence of different opinions in academic circles, and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case in judicial practice. This leads to our thinking on the legal status of the "holder" after the removal of the right, the influence of the decision on the right of the "holder" and the definition of the nature of the "lawsuit" in judicial relief. The third part, which is also the focus of this paper, mainly puts forward its own views on the above focus, and focuses on the following points of view: (1) the judgment of removing power has only formal res judicata, and does not have substantive res judicata; (2) after the judgment of power, the holder of the bill is still the holder of the bill right and still enjoys the complete right of the bill; 3. After the judgment of power, it is not necessary for the obligee to file a lawsuit for cancellation. At present, the "lawsuit" in Article 223 of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China should be clearly sued separately. 4. after the judgment of the right, it is more reasonable for the "holder" to file a bill lawsuit. The last part, perfect the suggestion. Combined with the focus problems summed up in this paper, combined with the analysis of related reasons and theoretical argumentation, this paper puts forward some concrete and operable suggestions on the relief of the rights of the "holder" after the removal of the power judgment, in view of the defects existing in the existing legal system.
【学位授予单位】：宁波大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】