本文選題：債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán) + 性質(zhì)�。� 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 隨著商品經(jīng)濟(jì)日趨發(fā)達(dá),商品交換逾是頻繁。在商品交換繁榮的背后,不少人出于各種各樣的原因,有意或無意地破壞著交易的安全,在一定程度上阻礙了市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。這就需要完整的規(guī)則或規(guī)范來保障商品的交換及其信譽(yù)安全,于是產(chǎn)生了撤銷權(quán)制度。盡管我國《合同法》及相關(guān)司法解釋已經(jīng)對債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度做了規(guī)定,但是該制度在現(xiàn)實經(jīng)濟(jì)生活中的適用,凸現(xiàn)出諸多問題,諸如對法律條文理解各異、司法實踐缺乏統(tǒng)一的法律依據(jù)等。因此,只有更系統(tǒng)、完整地理解撤銷權(quán)制度,才能為立法和司法實踐提供一個更為準(zhǔn)確、合理、適應(yīng)現(xiàn)實經(jīng)濟(jì)生活的理論依據(jù)和法律依據(jù)。本文共分為四部分: 第一部分從考察債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度的歷史沿革出發(fā),對債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度的起源以及歐洲各國對其的立法現(xiàn)狀做考察,并對我國債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度的立法歷程及現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行了分析。介紹了有關(guān)債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)的性質(zhì)的各種學(xué)說,筆者贊同折衷說,認(rèn)為債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)是一項實體權(quán)利,與債權(quán)具有不可分性。形成權(quán)是撤銷權(quán)的根基,請求權(quán)是行使撤銷權(quán)的結(jié)果。接著通過將撤銷權(quán)制度與民事行為的撤銷權(quán)、破產(chǎn)法上的撤銷權(quán)、債權(quán)人代位權(quán)等相關(guān)制度進(jìn)行比較,以體現(xiàn)債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度的特征。 第二部分從客觀要件和主觀要件兩方面分析債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件�？陀^要件包括債權(quán)人債權(quán)合法有效、債務(wù)人實施了處分財產(chǎn)行為、債務(wù)人的行為有害債權(quán)。在主觀方面,只要債務(wù)人知道處分財產(chǎn)的行為將導(dǎo)致其無資力清償債務(wù),從而有害于債權(quán)人債權(quán),仍實施該行為,足以表明債務(wù)人具有惡意;只要受益人知道是以明顯不合理的低價轉(zhuǎn)讓的,就可推斷其具有主觀惡意。 第三部分詳細(xì)論述了如何行使撤銷權(quán)。主要對債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)的行使方式、主體、范圍、期間及效力進(jìn)行了分析。 第四部分在上文論述的基礎(chǔ)上,指出我國現(xiàn)行債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度的不足:行使撤銷權(quán)的范圍比較窄;傳統(tǒng)的“入庫規(guī)則”限制了撤銷權(quán)人的權(quán)利;關(guān)于訴訟當(dāng)事人地位的確定存在缺陷,只規(guī)定受益人或者受讓人可作為第三人。并對我國相關(guān)立法完善提出建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of commodity economy, commodity exchange is frequent. Behind the prosperity of commodity exchange, many people, for various reasons, intentionally or unintentionally undermine the security of the transaction, to some extent hinder the development of the market economy. This requires complete rules or norms to ensure the exchange of goods and the credibility of the security, thus the system of rescission rights. Although China's contract Law and related judicial interpretations have stipulated the system of creditor's right of rescission, the application of this system in real economic life has brought out many problems, such as different understanding of legal provisions. The judicial practice lacks the unified legal basis and so on. Therefore, only a more systematic and complete understanding of the revocation system can provide a more accurate and reasonable theoretical and legal basis for the legislative and judicial practice to adapt to the real economic life. This paper is divided into four parts: In the first part, from the historical evolution of creditor's revocation system, the origin of creditor's revocation right system and the legislative status of European countries are investigated. At the same time, the legislative process and present situation of the creditor's revocation right system in China are analyzed. This paper introduces various theories about the nature of the creditor's right of rescission. The author agrees with the compromise that the creditor's right of rescission is a substantive right and is inseparable from the creditor's right. The right of formation is the foundation of the right of rescission, and the right of claim is the result of exercising the right of revocation. Then by comparing the system of revocation right with the right of revocation of civil act, the right of revocation on bankruptcy law, the right of subrogation of creditor and so on, to reflect the characteristics of the system of revocation right of creditor. The second part analyzes the constitutive elements of creditor's right of rescission from two aspects: objective elements and subjective elements. The objective elements include the validity of creditor's claim, the debtor's disposition of property, and the debtor's harmful behavior. On the subjective side, as long as the debtor knows that the disposition of the property will lead to his inability to pay off debts, which is harmful to the creditor's rights, it is sufficient to show that the debtor is malicious; As long as the beneficiary knows that the transfer was made at an obviously unreasonable price, it can be inferred that it is malicious. The third part discusses in detail how to exercise the right of rescission. This paper mainly analyzes the way, subject, scope, period and effect of creditor's right of rescission. The fourth part points out the deficiency of the current system of creditor's right of rescission in our country on the basis of the discussion above: the scope of exercising the right of revocation is relatively narrow, the traditional rules of entering storehouse restrict the right of cancelling right; With regard to the determination of the litigant's status, only the beneficiary or transferee can be regarded as a third party. And put forward the suggestion to our country related legislation consummation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 韓世遠(yuǎn);債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)研究[J];比較法研究;2004年03期

2 陳雪萍;債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)之訴之性質(zhì)及主體研析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2004年04期

3 黃姣梅;;論債權(quán)人行使保全撤銷權(quán)后的優(yōu)先受償權(quán)[J];湖北經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

4 鄧建華,李林太;撤銷權(quán)人利益保護(hù)之研究——合同保全制度“入庫規(guī)則”的幾點困惑[J];遼寧商務(wù)職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年01期

5 何岸青;;論債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)之訴的被告[J];時代經(jīng)貿(mào)(中旬刊);2007年S1期

6 申衛(wèi)星;論債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)的構(gòu)成——兼評我國《合同法》74條[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2000年02期

7 張文靜;;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[J];職業(yè)圈;2007年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 梁宇棟;債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

2 陳慶;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

3 崔靜;債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度探討[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

4 鄧小龍;債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號：1907017