本文選題：保證 + 債務(wù)免除��； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓已經(jīng)成為當(dāng)今商事貿(mào)易中重要的交易類型，它在結(jié)算便易和促進(jìn)資金流通上比傳統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)金結(jié)算更具有優(yōu)勢。法律鼓勵(lì)交易，故賦予了當(dāng)事人在合同領(lǐng)域極大的意思自治空間，然而由于法律對于合同的變更、轉(zhuǎn)移只有為數(shù)不多的規(guī)定，故當(dāng)事人在自由處分合同時(shí)，可能造成對內(nèi)和對外不同的表征。我國法律并未就債務(wù)免除的形式作出嚴(yán)格的規(guī)定，以至于出現(xiàn)多種內(nèi)容不一致的意思表示時(shí)，法院審判缺少法律依據(jù)，很難作出統(tǒng)一的判決。絲綢公司訴安和公司等債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同糾紛一案，由于債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓中債務(wù)免除的問題在《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同》與《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓公告》中表述不一致，從而應(yīng)該以何者為準(zhǔn)來對待絲綢公司的債務(wù)問題，成為了各法院的審判焦點(diǎn).事實(shí)上，其實(shí)質(zhì)是怎樣權(quán)衡交易自由與交易安全的價(jià)值�？v觀案情，各法院對絲綢公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任性質(zhì)為連帶保證責(zé)任并無異議。但是，由于主債務(wù)人破產(chǎn)清算后業(yè)已注銷，保證人的保證責(zé)任不再具有或然性，故單純的保證責(zé)任繼續(xù)轉(zhuǎn)讓時(shí)，絲綢公司已從保證人成為了該筆債務(wù)中的主債務(wù)人，即喪失了保證的基本屬性：從屬性。所以絲綢公司的責(zé)任應(yīng)定義為主債務(wù)為宜�；诤贤杂稍瓌t以及合同的相對性和特定性，，當(dāng)事人之間簽訂的《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同》應(yīng)為最終效力文本，法律并無規(guī)定當(dāng)事人對債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓內(nèi)容有向社會(huì)公眾披露的義務(wù)，故《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同》與《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓公告》內(nèi)容相沖突時(shí)，以《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同》條款為準(zhǔn)更為合理。最高人民法院支持免除債務(wù)有一則理由為：后手受讓人不得取得大于前手的的權(quán)利。但是這一規(guī)則不是絕對的，尤其在債權(quán)逐漸適用于善意取得制度的情況下，當(dāng)受讓人以合理的價(jià)格，善意取得該債權(quán)時(shí)，可能會(huì)取得大于前手的權(quán)利，所以最高院的判決這一理由值得討論。當(dāng)然，是否適用善意取得，還應(yīng)當(dāng)具體案情而定。
[Abstract]:Creditor's right transfer has become an important transaction type in commercial trade nowadays. It is more advantageous than the traditional cash settlement in clearing and promoting the circulation of funds. The law encourages transactions, thus giving the parties a great deal of autonomy in the field of contracts. However, since there are only a few provisions in the law for changes in contracts, when the parties dispose of the contracts freely, May result in different internal and external representations. The form of debt relief has not been strictly regulated in our country's law, so that when there are many kinds of inconsistent expressions of intention, the court is short of legal basis, so it is difficult to make a unified judgment. In the case of silk company v. Anhe and other contract disputes over assignment of creditor's rights, due to the problem of debt relief in the assignment of creditor's rights, it is not expressed in the contract of assignment of creditor's rights and the notice of assignment of creditor's rights. So what should be treated as the debt of silk companies, has become the focus of the courts. In fact, its essence is how to balance the value of trade freedom and transaction security. Throughout the case, the courts have no objection to the nature of the silk company's liability as joint warranty. However, since the principal debtor has been cancelled after liquidation and the surety's warranty liability is no longer probable, the silk company has become the principal debtor in the debt by the time the simple warranty liability continues to be transferred, That is, the loss of the guarantee of the basic attribute: slave attribute. So the silk company's liability should be defined as the main debt. Based on the principle of freedom of contract and the relativity and specificity of the contract, the contract of assignment of creditor's rights signed between the parties shall be the final effective text, and the law does not stipulate that the parties have the obligation to disclose the content of the transfer of creditor's rights to the public. Therefore, when the contract of assignment of creditor's rights conflicts with the content of the assignment of creditor's rights, it is more reasonable to take the term of contract of assignment of creditor's rights as the standard. One reason why the Supreme people's Court supports debt forgiveness is that the subsequent transferee may not acquire rights greater than the former. But this rule is not absolute, especially if the claim is gradually applied to the bona fide acquisition system, when the assignee acquires the claim in good faith at a reasonable price, it may acquire a greater right than the previous party, So the reason for the Supreme Court's decision is worth discussing. Of course, the application of bona fide acquisition, also should be specific to the case.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D920.5;D923.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 張谷;論債務(wù)免除的性質(zhì)[J];法律科學(xué)-西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

本文編號：1998867