本文選題：債權(quán)讓與　切入點：讓與通知　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟生活中,作為一項重要財產(chǎn)性權(quán)利的債權(quán)的地位日益重要。債權(quán)讓與不單在加快債權(quán)的流通性,使社會資源得到有效配置,還在促進經(jīng)濟增長等方面具有十分積極的作用。所以針對債權(quán)讓與行為的效力問題開展較全面的研究分析具有十分重要的意義。 債權(quán)讓與制度的形成并非一蹴而就的,其經(jīng)歷了禁止、逐步放寬直至現(xiàn)在可以自由讓與的一個漫長而又復(fù)雜的變遷過程。對債權(quán)讓與制度最早的規(guī)定出現(xiàn)在古羅馬法。目前,雖然債權(quán)讓與制度已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為兩大法系諸國的民事立法通例,但是由于各國的立法背景、傳統(tǒng)理論以及國情的差異,各國對債權(quán)讓與行為效力的具體規(guī)定不盡相同。但是總體而言,國外有關(guān)債權(quán)讓與行為效力的法律制度相對比較完善,而且學(xué)說和判例十分的豐富。而相對的來說,我國《合同法》及其司法解釋盡管用專門的章節(jié)對債權(quán)讓與行為進行規(guī)定,不過規(guī)定得比較籠統(tǒng)、寬泛,對許多關(guān)鍵性問題都沒有涉及,如通知的效力問題、重復(fù)讓與效力問題、表見讓與效力問題以及連續(xù)讓與效力問題等,從而導(dǎo)致不單是實務(wù)界還是學(xué)說理論界都存在著很大的爭論,這不但不利于實際中的操作,也不利于債權(quán)的自由讓與以及經(jīng)濟的增長。 為此,本文運用比較研究、歷史研究以及案例研究的方法,在介紹我國現(xiàn)行法中債權(quán)讓與行為效力的法律依據(jù)及存在的問題的基礎(chǔ)上,分別對典型國家或者地區(qū)的債權(quán)讓與行為效力的立法例進行比較考察,從而提出我國債權(quán)讓與行為的效力應(yīng)當如何認定。 首先,就讓與通知的效力而言,它表現(xiàn)在三方面：一是對讓與人和受讓人的效力；二是對債務(wù)人的效力；三是在除債務(wù)人之外的其他第三人效力方面。其次,在重復(fù)讓與情形下,應(yīng)當依據(jù)通知時間的先后順序來判斷債權(quán)的歸屬。再次,無論讓與人還是受讓人進行通知,都可以適用表見讓與制度,但是在產(chǎn)生債權(quán)表見讓與效力上的通知要件的要求則有所不同。至于債務(wù)人的主觀狀態(tài),應(yīng)當是善意的,否則不產(chǎn)生債權(quán)表見讓與的效力。最后,連續(xù)讓與情形下,應(yīng)當以已經(jīng)通知債務(wù)人與否為時間點來判斷權(quán)利歸屬。
[Abstract]:In modern economic life, the position of creditor's rights as an important property right is becoming more and more important. It also plays an active role in promoting economic growth, so it is of great significance to carry out comprehensive research and analysis on the validity of the act of assignment of creditor's rights. The formation of the system of assignment of creditor's rights was not accomplished overnight. It experienced a long and complicated process of transition, which was prohibited and relaxed gradually until now. The earliest stipulation of the system of assignment of creditor's rights appeared in ancient Roman law. Although the system of assignment of creditor's rights has developed into a general rule of civil legislation in the countries of two legal systems, but due to the legislative background, traditional theory and national conditions of different countries, However, on the whole, the foreign legal system on the validity of the act of assignment of creditor's rights is relatively perfect, and the doctrine and jurisprudence are very rich. Although China's contract Law and its judicial interpretation provide for the act of assignment of creditor's rights in a special chapter, the provisions are general and broad, and they do not deal with many key issues, such as the validity of notice. The problem of the repeated effect of transfer, the problem of apparent effect of transfer and the problem of continuous effect of transfer lead to a lot of controversy not only in the field of practice but also in the field of theory and theory, which is not conducive to the operation in practice. Also not conducive to the free transfer of claims and economic growth. Therefore, this paper uses the methods of comparative study, historical study and case study to introduce the legal basis and existing problems of the validity of the act of assignment of creditor's rights in the current law of our country. This paper makes a comparative study on the legislative cases of the validity of the act of assignment of creditor's rights in typical countries or regions, and puts forward how to confirm the validity of the act of assignment of creditor's rights in our country. First, as far as the effectiveness of notice of assignment is concerned, it is manifested in three aspects: first, the effect against the transferor and the assignee; second, the effectiveness against the debtor; third, the effectiveness of the third party other than the debtor; and secondly, the effectiveness of the third party other than the debtor. In the case of repeated transfer, the attribution of the creditor's rights should be judged according to the order of the time of notification. Thirdly, the system of apparent transfer can be applied to the notice by the transferor or the assignee. However, the requirements of notification requirements for the effect of presenting assignment of creditor's rights are different. As for the subjective state of the debtor, it should be in good faith, otherwise it will not produce the effect of the presentation of assignment of the creditor's rights. Finally, in the case of continuous transfer, The attribution of rights should be judged by whether the debtor has been notified or not.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.6;D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許多奇;債法現(xiàn)代化的法理基礎(chǔ)與債權(quán)地位的法律證成[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年05期

2 施漢嶸;析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干法律問題[J];法律適用;2003年07期

3 崔建遠,韓海光;債權(quán)讓與的法律構(gòu)成論[J];法學(xué);2003年07期

4 戴建庭;債權(quán)讓與制度比較研究——兼論對我國合同法中債權(quán)讓與制度的完善[J];河北法學(xué);2004年08期

5 汪傳才;論債權(quán)讓與的通知[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2002年03期

6 陽朝鋒;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓通知性質(zhì)辨——與施漢嶸先生“析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干法律問題”商榷[J];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年04期

7 申建平;;論未來債權(quán)讓與[J];求是學(xué)刊;2007年03期

8 王艷梅;論日本民法上指名債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的規(guī)則[J];日本問題研究;2000年03期

9 韓海光,崔建遠;論債權(quán)讓與的標的物[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年05期

10 劉燕;債權(quán)讓與通知的效力[J];政法論壇;2003年02期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 陳叢蓉 張旭琳;[N];人民法院報;2002年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 袁正英;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓制度研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

2 仲楊;債權(quán)讓與效力問題研究[D];北京工商大學(xué);2007年

3 陳坤;論債權(quán)讓與制度中的通知[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1670786