比较法视野下我国票据抗辩法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-30 20:13

【摘要】：在票据法律体系中，如果将整个票据法看作是票据权利人的保护法，票据抗辩则是对这种权利的限制，是通过对权利的对抗来限制权利滥用的可能性，从而达到票据法内在价值上的平衡。而任何法律的内在平衡都是通过权利与义务的协调和必要的对抗性来维持的。票据抗辩是指票据债务人对票据持有人提出的付款请求以某种合法事由予以拒绝的行为，其本质是允许票据债务人在一定条件下，拒绝向持票人履行付款义务，从而使票据的安全性和流通性得到加强。该制度包括抗辩和抗辩限制两个部分，其设立的目的在于使票据债务人和票据债权人在法律关系中相互制约，，从而达到双方利益的均衡。因此，研究票据抗辩制度，对票据法的发展具有重要作用，对保护票据债务人的合法权利，维护票据流通的安全与秩序，进而促进票据的流通，具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。目前，经过长期发展的域外票据法，票据抗辩制度已经相当完善。总结起来主要为两大票据法体系，即以日内瓦票据法为代表的大陆法系和以美国《统一商法典》为代表的英美法系。两大体系下的抗辩制度各具特色，尤其是立法理念存在较大差异。在分类上，大陆法系将票据抗辩分为对物的抗辩和对人的抗辩，而美国《统一商法典》对票据抗辩的规定建立在对“正当持票人”界定的基础之上，依据持票人受制于抗辩的程度，分为真正的抗辩和普通的抗辩。无论是两大法系下的哪一种票据抗辩制度规范，立法都在体现本法系特色的同时，充分追求票据的流通性与安全性，具体制度完整而具有较强的逻辑性，值得我国借鉴。相比之下，我国票据抗辩制度存在一些缺陷，如票据立法理念过于注重安全性而忽视票据的流通性，具体抗辩规范与票据基本原理相违背，票据必须记载事项要求与票据法的私法属性不一致等。因此，通过对相对完善的日内瓦大陆法系和英美票据法系的票据抗辩制度进行比较研究，总结出其异同点，找出其先进并且适合我国的规定，重新构建适合我国票据抗辩立法理念和立法模式，弱化无效抗辩事由，完善票据抗辩限制是当前改进票据抗辩制度的首要选择。
[Abstract]:In the legal system of negotiable instruments, if the whole negotiable instruments law is regarded as the protection law of the obligee of negotiable instruments, the negotiable instruments defense is the restriction of this right, which restricts the possibility of abuse of the right through the confrontation of the right, so as to achieve the balance of the intrinsic value of the negotiable instruments law. Reconciling necessary antagonism to maintain.
Negotiable instrument defense refers to the act that the debtor of a negotiable instrument refuses the payment request made by the holder of a negotiable instrument for some lawful reason. Its essence is to allow the debtor of a negotiable instrument to refuse to perform the obligation of payment to the holder under certain conditions, thus enhancing the security and negotiability of the instrument. Therefore, the study of the bill defense system plays an important role in the development of the bill law, protecting the legitimate rights of the bill debtor, safeguarding the security and order of the bill circulation, and thus promoting the bill. The circulation is of great theoretical and practical significance.
At present, after the long-term development of the extraterritorial bill law, the bill defense system has been quite perfect. In summary, there are two major bill law systems, namely, the continental law system represented by the Geneva bill law and the Anglo-American law system represented by the United States < Uniform Commercial Code < Uniform Commercial Code >. In the classification, the civil law system divides the bill defense into the object defense and the person defense, while the United States < Uniform Commercial Code > stipulates the bill defense on the basis of the definition of the "legitimate holder", according to the degree of the holder subject to the defense, it is divided into the real defense and the ordinary defense. Which kind of bill defense system norm, the legislation all manifests this law system characteristic at the same time, fully pursues the bill circulation and the security, the concrete system integrity and has the strong logic, is worth our country to draw lessons from.
In contrast, there are some shortcomings in the system of bill defense in China, such as the idea of bill legislation pays too much attention to security but neglects the negotiability of bill, the specific defense norm is contrary to the basic principle of bill, and the requirement of recording items in bill is inconsistent with the private law attribute of bill law. Comparing with the bill defense system of the Anglo-American Bill Law System, this paper summarizes its similarities and differences, finds out its advanced and suitable regulations, reconstructs the legislative concept and mode of bill defense in China, weakens the cause of invalid defense, and perfects the restriction of bill defense.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】