论票据利益偿还请求权制度

发布时间：2018-01-13 20:02

本文关键词：论票据利益偿还请求权制度　出处：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：票据是由出票人签发并在法定期限内由出票人或承兑人向持票人支付票据金额且重在流通的有价证券。票据利益偿还请求权是指票据权利人未及时行使权利或在行使权利遇到障碍时未依法保全权利以致票据权利灭失的,其仍享有请求义务人偿还所获利益的权利。《中华人民共和国票据法》(以下简称《票据法》)规定了该项请求权,该项请求权产生于票据权利灭失后,故不是票据权利;似乎也不是民事权利,因为该请求权当事人之间不一定存在民事权利义务关系,其似乎存在于民法与票据法之间。以德国为代表的大陆法系国家大多规定了该请求权,而包括英国、美国等在内的英美法系国家及日内瓦《统一汇票本票法公约》未规定该请求权。此外,该请求权是一种什么样的权利,又该如何行使呢?这些问题在各国立法理论和学界也未有定论。立法体系比较完善的德国票据法对此规定的比较完备,将该请求权规定为不当得利请求权,适用3年时效;我国票据法认为其是民事权利,在司法实践中适用普通民事权利2年时效的规定,其他国家对该请求权规定地较为简略。除了立法理论上的争议,该请求权在司法实践中的适用也存在许多值得探讨的问题,甚至出现过同案不同判的情形。因此,笔者认为该制度不仅是理论问题,而且是实践性很强的现实问题,然而我国立法规定得过于简略,难以为司法实践提供足够的依据和明确的指导。遂本文综合法理学,民商法学,票据法学等相关知识,运用比较、列举、分析和归纳总结等方法,从一般到特殊,具体问题具体分析等唯物辩证法对该制度进行全面的剖析,希望有助于完善我国票据法。本文第一章是对该请求权的概述:首先从下定义的角度以举例的方式得出该请求权是票据法为平衡双方利益实现实质公平而设。然后探讨其立法价值,笔者认为该请求权体现了公平、效率和衡平三大价值。最后分析该请求权的构成要件:请求权人包括但不限于失去票据权利的最后持票人;义务人是实际获益的票据债务人;票据权利因逾期未行使或未保全而灭失;票据债务人因持票人权利灭失而获益。第二章阐述学界对该请求权性质的争议,鉴于该请求权是票据法基于衡平理念而设,笔者倾向于将其定性为法定特别请求权。第三章既是本文重点也是难点部分,该章全面分析该请求权的适用问题:该请求权与民事基础债权不会同时存在;该请求权是往取债权以债务人所在地为行使地;该权利在请求权人与受让方达成合意的基础上通知义务人后可让渡;为了贯彻票据法尽快了结票据关系促进票据流通的立法精神,该请求权应适用1年诉讼时效。第四章首先分析了超过时效、未履行权利保全手续和缺少票面记载事项三种情形下是否需要法律救济,得出我国只有在时效期满的情形下才符合该请求权的行使要件。最后提出对我国票据法的修改意见:票据法应规定其为特别请求权;将利益偿还范围修订为票据债务人的实际获益数额;增加自该请求权成立时起1年诉讼时效的规定。
[Abstract]:The bill is issued by the drawer and within the statutory time limit by the drawer or acceptor holder to pay the amount and focuses on negotiable securities. The bill claim for reinstitution interest refers to the obligee fails to exercise their rights in the exercise of rights or obstacles encountered when failing to benefit that full insurance bill rights loss, the still enjoy the rights. > People's Republic of China negotiable instruments law obligation to repay the request of the profit (hereinafter referred to as the "negotiable instruments law >) the provisions of this claim, the claim was born after the loss of bill right, right is not the bill; it does not seem to be civil rights, because the claim does not necessarily exist between civil parties the rights and obligations, seems to exist in civil law and negotiable instruments law. In Germany as the representative of the civil law countries have stipulated the right of claim, including Britain, the United States and other countries of Anglo American law system And Geneva's unified draft Convention on the law of the provisions of the promissory note > not claim. In addition, the claim is a kind of what kind of rights, how to exercise? These problems in legislation and theory circles is inconclusive. A relatively perfect system of legislative provisions of the negotiable instruments law of Germany in this regard will be provided is complete. The right of claim for unjust enrichment claim, for 3 years of aging; the bill law of our country think it is civil rights and civil rights provisions of the common application in judicial practice in 2 years time, other countries of the claim rules is more simple. In addition to the legislative theory of the dispute, for the claim in judicial practice the problems, even appeared different codefendant situation. Therefore, the author thinks that the system is not only a theoretical problem, but also is a practical problem with very strong practice, but I too national regulations Briefly, to provide sufficient basis and clear guidance for judicial practice. Then this paper comprehensive jurisprudence, civil law, negotiable instruments law and other related knowledge, by comparison, are analyzed and summarized, and other methods, from the general to the specific, comprehensive analysis on the system of the concrete analysis of concrete problems such as materialist dialectics, there is hope help to improve China's negotiable instruments law. The first chapter is an overview of the claim: first from the definition of the angle by way of example that the claim is negotiable for balancing the interests of both the realization of substantive justice. And then discuss the value of legislation, the author thinks that the right of claim reflects the fairness, efficiency and equity the three value elements. The final analysis of this claim: the claimant including but not limited to the holder losing rights on the bill; the duty is the actual benefit of the debtor; rights because of overdue bill Does not exercise or preservation and loss of the debtor; because the ticket holder shall benefit. The second chapter expounds the academic nature of the claim of the dispute, in view of the claim is based on the concept of equity and law of negotiable instruments, the author tends to be characterized as a special legal claim. The third chapter is the emphasis and difficulty part of the chapter, for a comprehensive analysis of the right of claim: the claim and the basis of civil claims does not exist at the same time; the claim is to take the debt to the debtor is located for the exercise of the rights and obligation of notification; based on the claimant and the agreement on Fang Dacheng after transfer; in order to carry out the bill as soon as possible taking notes relations to promote the spirit of the legislation of bill circulation, the claim should be 1 years of limitation of action. The fourth chapter first analyzes the over time, did not fulfill the right of security procedures and lack of coupon items in three ways Under the need of legal remedies, the exercise elements of our country with the claim only in case of the expiration of the limitation period. Finally, on our negotiable instrument law amendments bill law should be regulated as the special right of claim; benefits will be revised to repay range the debtor's actual benefit amount increased since the request; the right to set up when the provisions of the 1 years of the statute of limitations.

【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】：D922.287

【相似文献】