票据诉讼程序研究

发布时间：2018-05-16 19:08

本文选题：票据权利纠纷 + 特殊性　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国目前没有专门的票据诉讼程序，票据权利纠纷的司法救济途径只有普通诉讼程序和督促程序两种，其中普通诉讼程序是最常使用的救济程序。但是票据权利纠纷较其他民事纠纷而言，具有非常明显的特殊性，其中票据权利纠纷涉及的法律关系相对单一、纠纷内容相对清晰明确、纠纷当事人容易确定、纠纷对解决的期限要求较高等特点最为突出。而我国现行的普通诉讼程序的设置并没有充分考虑票据权利纠纷的特殊性，审理程序复杂、诉讼耗时长、无法及时、准确的调整票据关系。而中国式困境下的督促程序因受信用体系不完善、程序设置不合理以及自身程序特点等原因的影响，在解决票据权利纠纷方面始终不尽人意。通过对于德国、日本票据诉讼制度的考察，以及对于我国票据市场迅猛发展的分析和民事诉讼制度繁简分流转型要求的适应，我国应该设立专门的票据诉讼程序，形成票据诉讼程序、普通诉讼程序、督促程序之间的分流与转化。本文共分为分五个部分，首先对于票据权利纠纷予以清晰界定、其次通过我国票据权利纠纷解决的司法现状的分析以及其他国家或地区票据权利纠纷司法救济途径的考察、然后罗列出我国增设票据诉讼程序的必要性和可行性、最后提出我国票据诉讼程序的构建，这是本文的基本脉络。具体而言，本文各部分的主要内容为：第一部分，票据权利纠纷的界说。本部分主要通过对票据法律关系的梳理明确了票据纠纷的范围，进而对于票据纠纷中的票据权利纠纷予以了界定，对于票据权利纠纷的特殊性进行了深入的挖掘。该部分是本文的法理基础，对于票据诉讼程序的研究主要是基于票据权利纠纷的特殊性来展开的。第二部分，我国票据权利纠纷解决的司法现状。如上所述，普通诉讼程序和督促程序是我国目前化解票据权利纠纷的两大途径，但是面临着救济不力的困境，这是我们进行票据诉讼程序研究的价值所在，也是本文研究脉络中的论证起点。第三部分，其他国家或地区票据权利纠纷司法救济途径的考察。该部分从票据法系入手，，着重对与我国票据法系相同，诉讼制度类似的德国和日本的票据诉讼制度进行了介绍，从中我们发现德国、日本非常注重票据无因性、文义性等特点，设置了符合票据权利纠纷特殊性的票据诉讼程序来迅速、快捷的化解票决权利纠纷，这为我国票据诉讼制度的改革提供了极具参考价值的经验。第四部分，我国增设票据诉讼程序的必要性和可行性。通过仔细分析，我们发现我国迅猛发展的票据市场需要高效、便捷的票据诉讼程序，繁简分流的诉讼制度转型思路和商事审判独立化的趋向也要求增设票据诉讼程序。此外票据权利的特殊性和德日两国的票据诉讼制度为增设票据诉讼程序提供了可行性。第五部分，我国票据诉讼程序的构建。本部分关于程序的构建主要从与现有程序分流与转化、程序自身高效、便捷两大理念出发，对于票据诉讼程序的适用范围、管辖问题、证据方法、判决后程序设置等方面进行了设计，实现督促程序、票据诉讼程序、普通诉讼程序之间的对接，以期达到案件分流、程序与案件相当、当事人程序择权利益充实的目标。
[Abstract]:There is no special procedure in our country at present. There are only two kinds of judicial remedy for the dispute of bill rights. The ordinary procedure is the most common remedy procedure. But the dispute of bill rights is more unusual than other civil disputes, among which the bill rights dispute is involved. The legal relationship is relatively simple, the content of the dispute is relatively clear and clear, the parties to the dispute are easy to determine, the dispute is most prominent in the time limit for solving the dispute, and the current general procedure in our country does not fully consider the particularity of the bill rights dispute, the procedure is complicated and the lawsuit is time-consuming, so it can not be timely and accurate. Under the influence of the imperfect credit system, the unreasonable program setting and the characteristics of its own procedure, the supervision procedure under the Chinese dilemma has always been unsatisfactory in solving the dispute over the bill rights. In the analysis and the adaptation of the requirements of the system of civil litigation, our country should set up special procedure of bill litigation to form the procedure of bill, the common procedure and the diversion and transformation between the procedure and the procedure.
This article is divided into five parts. First of all, it clearly defines the disputes of bill rights. Secondly, through the analysis of the judicial status of the settlement of the bill rights in China and the investigation of the judicial remedy ways of other countries or regions, then lists the necessity and feasibility of adding the litigation procedure in our country. It is the basic thread of this article to construct our country's bill litigation procedure. Specifically, the main contents of this article are:
The first part is the definition of the bill rights dispute. This part mainly clarifies the scope of the bill dispute through combing the legal relationship of the bill, and then defines the bill rights dispute in the bill dispute, and deeply excavate the particularity of the bill rights dispute. This part is the legal basis of this article, and the bill litigation is the basis of this article. The study of litigation procedure is mainly based on the particularity of disputes about the rights of negotiable instruments.
The second part, the judicial status of the settlement of the bill rights disputes in our country. As mentioned above, the ordinary procedure and the supervision and promotion procedure are the two main ways to resolve the dispute of the bill rights in our country, but facing the plight of poor relief, this is the value of the study of the bill procedure and the starting point of the argument in this paper.
The third part, the investigation of the judicial remedy for the bill rights disputes in other countries or regions. This part, starting with the instrument law system, focuses on the introduction of the German and Japanese bill litigation system similar to the bill law system in China and similar litigation system in Germany and Japan. The bill litigation procedure which accords with the particularity of the bill rights dispute is set up quickly and quickly to resolve the dispute of the right of the ticket, which provides the valuable experience for the reform of the bill litigation system of our country.
The fourth part, the necessity and feasibility of adding the bill litigation procedure in China. Through careful analysis, we find that the rapid development of the bill market needs efficient and convenient bill litigation procedure, the transformation of simple and distributary litigation system and the trend of commercial trial independence also require the addition of bill litigation procedure. In addition, the bill rights are right. The particularity of the system and the bill litigation system in Germany and Japan provide feasibility for the establishment of the bill litigation procedure.
The fifth part, the construction of China's bill litigation procedure. This part of the construction of the procedure mainly from the existing procedures to divert and transform, the program itself efficient and convenient two ideas, for the scope of the application of the bill litigation procedure, the jurisdiction problem, the evidence method, the decision after the setting of the order, and so on, to realize the supervision procedure, bill The docking between litigation procedure and common litigation procedure aims to achieve the goal of diverting cases, procedures and cases, and enriching the rights and interests of the parties.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】