本文選題：備用信用證 + 獨(dú)立擔(dān)保��； 參考：《對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)》2003年碩士論文

【摘要】： 美國(guó)的銀行界為了規(guī)避法律不允許銀行為第三人提供擔(dān)保的規(guī)定而創(chuàng)設(shè)了備用信用證。因此從其起源來(lái)講，備用信用證的產(chǎn)生是出于替代銀行保函的目的。由于從傳統(tǒng)商業(yè)信用證衍生而來(lái)，備用信用證自產(chǎn)生之日即承繼了信用證所固有的獨(dú)立性特點(diǎn)。作為一種擔(dān)保方式，這種獨(dú)立性特點(diǎn)正好契合了經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和各方當(dāng)事人的需要，從而賦予了備用信用證無(wú)窮的活力，其使用范圍也迅速?gòu)膰?guó)內(nèi)交易擴(kuò)展到國(guó)際交易，從支持金融性債務(wù)的擔(dān)保發(fā)展到支持各種類型的債務(wù)履行�，F(xiàn)今，備用信用證已被廣泛運(yùn)用于社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)生活的各方各面，其業(yè)務(wù)量也遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)了傳統(tǒng)的商業(yè)信用證，成為一種重要的國(guó)際金融工具。本文即意圖在國(guó)際商會(huì)和聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易法委員會(huì)制訂的文件的基礎(chǔ)上就備用信用證本身以及在運(yùn)作過(guò)程中所存在的法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析和探討。 關(guān)于備用信用證的性質(zhì)一直存在爭(zhēng)議。爭(zhēng)議的產(chǎn)生源自人們對(duì)于擔(dān)保是否可以具有獨(dú)立性的懷疑。傳統(tǒng)的擔(dān)保具有附屬性和補(bǔ)充性的特點(diǎn)，這一特點(diǎn)完全體現(xiàn)了設(shè)定擔(dān)保的目的，也限制了擔(dān)保人責(zé)任的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)范圍。備用信用證的獨(dú)立性則使擔(dān)保人/開證行在對(duì)受益人付款時(shí)完全不考慮基礎(chǔ)合同項(xiàng)下的義務(wù)履行情況，而只能根據(jù)受益人在備用信用證下所提交的單據(jù)來(lái)作出是否付款的決定。只要單據(jù)符合規(guī)定，銀行就必須付款。 盡管備用信用證，或稱具有獨(dú)立性的擔(dān)保的出現(xiàn)是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的擔(dān)保制度的一次重大突破，但卻沒有突破傳統(tǒng)擔(dān)保制度的極限。擔(dān)保合同因其功能而在合同法中自成一類，但從根本上講仍屬于合同的范疇，因此應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循當(dāng)事人意思自治的基本原則。當(dāng)事人在基礎(chǔ)合同中協(xié)商使用備用信用證，以及銀行開具備用信用證時(shí)均是以為基礎(chǔ)合同項(xiàng)下義務(wù)履行提供保證為目的。當(dāng)事各方對(duì)所提供的擔(dān)保的獨(dú)立性的規(guī)定是當(dāng)事各方對(duì)付款時(shí)及付款后所存在的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)所做的一種分配，即付款時(shí)基礎(chǔ)義務(wù)已得到履行或基礎(chǔ)義務(wù)已滅失以及付款后信用證申請(qǐng)人需以訴訟方式追回款項(xiàng)。這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分配是基于當(dāng)事各方對(duì)自己利益的權(quán)衡結(jié)果，是當(dāng)事各方在自愿的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)自己私權(quán)利的處置，法律不應(yīng)對(duì)此加以干涉。從這個(gè)意義上講，備用信用證是一種新型的具有獨(dú)立性特點(diǎn)的擔(dān)保。 備用信用證的獨(dú)立性決定了備用信用證在事實(shí)上與申請(qǐng)人和受益人之間的基礎(chǔ)交易合同關(guān)系以及申請(qǐng)人與開證行之間的委托開證合同關(guān)系不可分割，在法律上卻相互獨(dú)立。因此嚴(yán)格講，備用信用證下的法律只涉及開證行和受益人之間的擔(dān)保合同關(guān)系，以及在有其它銀行介入的情況下，其它銀行與開證行和受益人的關(guān)系。開證行和受益人在備用信用證下所享有的權(quán)利和承擔(dān)的義務(wù)完全按照備用信用證內(nèi)所列的條件來(lái)確定。因此，對(duì)付款條件，即受益人應(yīng)提交單據(jù)的規(guī)定 WP=4 是備用信用證條款的核心內(nèi)容，不同的付款條件決定了受益人所能得到的好處和所面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，也決定了備用信用證在事實(shí)上獨(dú)立于基礎(chǔ)合同的程度。備用信用證中非單據(jù)條件的加入使得備用信用證完全摒棄了獨(dú)立性的特點(diǎn)和由此所帶來(lái)的優(yōu)勢(shì)，成為與傳統(tǒng)的保證無(wú)二的擔(dān)保工具。對(duì)于何為非單據(jù)條件的定義，或稱在何種情況下銀行的付款依賴于基礎(chǔ)合同存在著一定的爭(zhēng)論。一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為無(wú)論備用信用證規(guī)定要求提供什么性質(zhì)的單據(jù)或文件，只要銀行的義務(wù)只限于審單付款，銀行的付款義務(wù)就是獨(dú)立于基礎(chǔ)合同的；一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為如受益人所需要提交的單據(jù)本身已經(jīng)是對(duì)基礎(chǔ)合同項(xiàng)下權(quán)利義務(wù)的確認(rèn)，則備用信用證下的支付就是依賴于基礎(chǔ)合同的。ISP98從銀行操作的角度出發(fā)，采納了前一種觀點(diǎn)，以銀行的義務(wù)是否限于審單付款為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)作為劃分獨(dú)立和非獨(dú)立的界線。這樣規(guī)定的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是，從受益人角度，備用信用證將不能保證其得到償付的權(quán)利，其資金融通的功能也名存實(shí)亡。備用信用證將由于其喪失快捷性和確定性的特點(diǎn)而在一定程度上影響其存在的價(jià)值。 在備用信用證運(yùn)作過(guò)程中還存在著許多問(wèn)題。例如單據(jù)的提示和審查，受益人索款權(quán)利的轉(zhuǎn)讓和款項(xiàng)讓渡，以及受益人欺詐和濫用權(quán)利等。這些運(yùn)作中的問(wèn)題和在傳統(tǒng)商業(yè)信用證下所存在的問(wèn)題有一定的相似性。受益人的提示應(yīng)按照信用證規(guī)定的方式進(jìn)行并提示規(guī)定的單據(jù)，銀行的審單應(yīng)按照表面一致和嚴(yán)格相符的原則；索款權(quán)利的轉(zhuǎn)讓指的是受益人將信用證下提示單據(jù)并要求付款的權(quán)利轉(zhuǎn)讓給另一人，款項(xiàng)讓渡指的是在作出付款的情況下，轉(zhuǎn)讓信用證下的收益，索款權(quán)利仍屬于原受益人；在受益人欺詐和濫用權(quán)利的情況下，銀行可自行決定或根據(jù)法院的止付令解除對(duì)受益人的付款義務(wù)。 中國(guó)法上幾乎沒有對(duì)備用信用證作出相關(guān)規(guī)定，但法律為備用信用證的合法性留下了空間。實(shí)踐中，，我國(guó)銀行自80年代以來(lái)就順應(yīng)國(guó)際慣例開始使用備用信用證。但是，我國(guó)法院在對(duì)待備用信用證的有效性問(wèn)題上卻區(qū)分國(guó)際和國(guó)內(nèi)加以區(qū)別對(duì)待，對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中開立的備用信用證的有效性持否認(rèn)態(tài)度。這一做法不利于與國(guó)際接軌，也與各國(guó)際慣例和公約的精神不符。由于備用信用證使用上所具有的國(guó)際性，建議中國(guó)加入《聯(lián)合國(guó)獨(dú)立擔(dān)保與備用信用證公約》，并盡快推廣ISP98的使用。同時(shí)，應(yīng)依照國(guó)際慣例和公約的規(guī)定加快完善國(guó)內(nèi)立法來(lái)指導(dǎo)和約束備用信用證的使用。
[Abstract]:The American bank created a standby letter of credit in order to avoid the law that does not allow the bank to provide guarantee for third people. Therefore, the origin of the standby letter of credit is derived from the purpose of replacing the bank guarantee. As a guarantee, the independence feature coincides with the economic development and the needs of the parties, thus endowing the standby letter of credit with infinite vitality. Its scope of use is also rapidly expanded from domestic transactions to international transactions, from the support of financial debt support to the support of various types of debt. Today, the standby letter of credit has been widely used in all sides of the social and economic life, and its business volume is far more than the traditional commercial letter of credit. It has become an important international financial instrument. This article is intended to be based on the documents formulated by the International Chamber of Commerce and the United Nations Commission on Trade Law on the standby letter of credit itself and on the basis of the document. The legal problems existing in the operation process are analyzed and discussed.
The nature of the standby letter of credit has always been controversial. The origin of the dispute arises from the suspicion that the security can have independence. The traditional guarantee has the characteristics of the attached property and supplemental nature, which completely embodies the purpose of setting up the guarantee and limits the scope of the risk of the responsibility of the guarantor. The independence of the standby letter of credit is In order to make the guarantor / bank in payment of the beneficiary, it does not take into account the performance of the obligations under the basic contract, and can only make a decision on whether the payment is made on the basis of the documents submitted under the standby letter of credit for the beneficiary. As long as the documents are in accordance with the regulations, the bank must pay.
Although the emergence of standby letter of credit, or the emergence of an independent guarantee, is a major breakthrough in the traditional guarantee system, it does not break through the limits of the traditional guarantee system. The guarantee contract is in the contract law because of its function, but it is still in the category of the contract. Therefore, it should follow the basis of the autonomy of the parties. This principle. The parties concerned use a standby letter of credit in a basic contract, as well as a bank with a standby letter of credit for the purpose of providing assurance as a guarantee under the obligation under a basic contract. The provisions of the parties to the guarantee provided by the parties are a distribution of the risks of the parties on the payment and payment. In the case of payment, the basic obligation has been fulfilled or the basic obligation has been lost and the letter of credit applicant needs to be recovered in the way of litigation. This risk allocation is based on the trade-off between the parties to their own interests and the disposal of the parties on their own rights on a voluntary basis. The law should not interfere with it. In a sense, standby letter of credit is a new type of guarantee with independent characteristics.
The independence of the standby letter of credit determines the relationship between the standby letter of credit in fact and the basic transaction contract between the applicant and the beneficiary and the entrustment contract relationship between the applicant and the issuing bank, and is independent in law. Therefore, the law under the standby letter of credit is strictly related to the issuing bank and the beneficiary. The relationship between the guarantee contract and the relationship between the other banks and the issuing bank and the beneficiary in the case of other banks. The rights and obligations of the issuing bank and the beneficiary under the standby letter of credit are determined in full accordance with the conditions listed in the standby letter of credit. For this reason, the beneficiary shall submit the documents. Regulations
WP=4
It is the core content of the terms of the standby letter of credit. The different terms of payment determine the benefits and risks that the beneficiary can obtain, and also determine the degree of the independence of the standby letter of credit on the basis of the basic contract. The addition of the non document conditions in the standby letter of credit makes the standby letter completely abandon the characteristics of independence and thus The advantages brought about as a guarantee without two of the traditional guarantee. There is a certain debate on what is the definition of non document conditions, or in what case the bank's payment depends on the basic contract. Limited to single payment, the bank's payment obligation is independent of the basic contract; a view is that a document that the beneficiary needs to submit is itself a confirmation of the rights and obligations under the basic contract, and the payment under the standby letter of credit is to rely on the.ISP98 of the basic contract from the perspective of the bank operation and adopt the previous one. The risk is that, from the beneficiary's point of view, a standby letter of credit will not guarantee the right to be paid, and its financial function is also dead. The standby letter of credit will result in its loss of shortcuts and certainty. To some extent, it affects the value of its existence.
There are many problems in the operation of the standby letter of credit, such as the presentation and review of the documents, the transfer of the right of the beneficiary and the transfer of money, and the fraud and abuse of the beneficiary. The problems in these operations are similar to those under the traditional commercial credit. The beneficiary's hints should be in accordance with the letter. The bank's audit should be in accordance with the principle of uniform and strict conformity in the manner specified in the form of a certificate. The transfer of the right of payment refers to the transfer of the right of the beneficiary to the bill of credit and the right to pay for payment to another person, and the transfer refers to the transfer of the credit under the case of payment. The right still belongs to the original beneficiary; in the case of fraud and abuse of the beneficiary, the bank may decide to dismiss the payment obligation to the beneficiary by itself or in accordance with the arrest warrant of the court.
There is hardly any stipulation on the standby letter of credit in China law, but the law has left space for the legitimacy of the standby letter of credit. In practice, the Bank of our country began to use the standby letter of credit in accordance with the international practice since 80s. However, the court of our country has made a distinction between international and domestic on the problem of the validity of the standby letter of credit. It is disadvantageous to the effectiveness of the standby letter of credit opened in domestic economic activities. This practice is not conducive to the integration of the international practice and the spirit of the international conventions and conventions. To promote the use of ISP98, we should speed up domestic legislation in accordance with international conventions and conventions to guide and restrict the use of standby letters of credit.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：D996

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

中國(guó)碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前3條

1 紀(jì)建勇;備用信用證應(yīng)用及其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)研究[D];天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

2 祝陽(yáng);福費(fèi)廷融資主要法律問(wèn)題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

3 徐奕;ISP98下開證人的法律地位研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1867887