本文選題：合同 + 金融不良債權(quán)��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力問題是金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓研究的核心;金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓又是金融不良債權(quán)處置的重要方式,因此金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力是金融不良債權(quán)處置的核心。在金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓糾紛頻發(fā)、爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)復(fù)雜的大背景下,我國(guó)并未形成金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力的系統(tǒng)理論,在司法實(shí)踐中存在法律適用難點(diǎn)。金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓作為特殊的債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓,具備債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的一般要件,又具備特殊的效力要件。文章結(jié)合債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓一般學(xué)說以及金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓方面的特殊規(guī)制,對(duì)金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力展開深入探討。文章以金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力一般理論入手。闡述債權(quán)和債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的關(guān)系,明確金融不良債權(quán)的范圍以及金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力的定義,從金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的特點(diǎn)說明金融不良債權(quán)與一般債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的區(qū)別,進(jìn)而分析不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力既受一般債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力的影響也要受國(guó)家金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓相關(guān)規(guī)定的特殊規(guī)制。其次,從市場(chǎng)交易秩序和國(guó)有資產(chǎn)保護(hù)兩個(gè)方面,列舉了具體因素對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力的影響:在市場(chǎng)交易秩序原則下,不良債權(quán)交易的價(jià)款是市場(chǎng)化的產(chǎn)物,與不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力并無影響;在全面放開不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的背景下應(yīng)該承認(rèn)向社會(huì)投資者不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力;金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同中雙方的特約條款相關(guān)規(guī)定已明確其效力,參照日本法禁止轉(zhuǎn)讓特約效力學(xué)說,金融不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同中對(duì)于特約條款效力還應(yīng)考慮到善意第三人的利益,維護(hù)交易秩序。在國(guó)有資產(chǎn)保護(hù)原則下,國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)為債務(wù)人或者擔(dān)保人情形不應(yīng)一概認(rèn)定不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓無效;不良債權(quán)中優(yōu)先購(gòu)買權(quán)對(duì)合同效力的影響,列舉了司法實(shí)踐中所產(chǎn)生的混亂,明確地方政府等國(guó)有主體優(yōu)先購(gòu)買權(quán)對(duì)不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力的影響,而國(guó)有債務(wù)人優(yōu)先購(gòu)買權(quán)不會(huì)對(duì)不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力產(chǎn)生影響。最后,結(jié)合影響不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓效力相關(guān)因素從社會(huì)投資者不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的司法支持、建立國(guó)家統(tǒng)一的資產(chǎn)交易平臺(tái)、完善資產(chǎn)評(píng)估體系、規(guī)范不良債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓監(jiān)督機(jī)制四個(gè)方面完善金融不良債權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)讓。
[Abstract]:The problem of the effectiveness of the transfer of financial non-performing claims is the core of the research on the transfer of financial non-performing claims, and the transfer of financial non-performing claims is an important way to deal with financial non-performing claims, so the transfer effect of financial non-performing claims is the core of the disposal of financial non-performing claims. Under the background of frequent disputes over the transfer of financial non-performing creditor's rights and complex dispute focus, China has not formed a systematic theory of the transfer effect of financial non-performing creditor's rights, and there are difficulties in the application of the law in judicial practice. As a special assignment of creditor's rights, the transfer of financial non-performing creditor's rights has the general elements of the assignment of creditor's rights and the special elements of validity. Combined with the general theory of transfer of creditor's rights and the special regulation on the transfer of non-performing financial claims, this paper makes an in-depth discussion on the transfer effect of financial non-performing claims. This article starts with the general theory of the transfer effect of financial non-performing creditor's rights. This paper expounds the relationship between creditor's rights and assignment of creditor's rights, clarifies the scope of financial bad claims and the definition of the validity of transfer of financial bad claims, and explains the difference between financial bad claims and general assignment of creditor's rights from the characteristics of the transfer of financial bad claims. Then it analyzes that the validity of the transfer of non-performing creditor's rights is affected not only by the transfer effect of general creditor's rights, but also by the special regulation of the relevant provisions of national financial non-performing creditor's rights transfer. Secondly, from the two aspects of market transaction order and the protection of state-owned assets, the paper lists the influence of specific factors on the transfer effectiveness: under the principle of market transaction order, the price of non-performing creditor's rights transaction is the product of marketization. Under the background of liberalizing the transfer of non-performing creditor's rights in an all-round way, the validity of the transfer of non-performing creditor's rights to social investors should be recognized. The relevant provisions of the special clauses of both parties in the contract for the transfer of financial non-performing creditor's rights have made its effect clear, referring to the doctrine of the prohibition of the transfer of a special contract under Japanese law, In the transfer contract of financial non-performing creditor's rights, the effect of special clause should also take into account the interests of bona fide third party and maintain the order of transaction. Under the principle of the protection of state-owned assets, the case that the state organ is the debtor or guarantor should not always consider that the transfer of non-performing creditor's rights is invalid; the influence of preferential purchase right in non-performing creditor's rights on the effectiveness of the contract is enumerated, and the confusion in judicial practice is enumerated. It is clear that the preemptive right of the local government and other state-owned entities has an impact on the transfer effect of the bad creditor's rights, while the prior purchase right of the state-owned debtor will not have an effect on the transfer effect of the bad creditor's rights. Finally, according to the relevant factors affecting the transfer effectiveness of non-performing creditor's rights, from the judicial support of social investors' transfer of non-performing claims, to establish a unified national asset trading platform, and improve the asset evaluation system. Standardize the supervision mechanism of the transfer of non-performing creditor's rights and improve the transfer of financial non-performing claims in four aspects.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6;D922.28

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李錚;;應(yīng)注意防范債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓過程中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[J];產(chǎn)權(quán)導(dǎo)刊;2012年09期

2 楊永強(qiáng);王經(jīng)偉;;農(nóng)發(fā)行不良貸款債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[J];農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展與金融;2014年02期

3 祁立民;;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓 應(yīng)先抵他人到期債務(wù)[J];現(xiàn)代營(yíng)銷;2001年12期

4 尹長(zhǎng)海;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓之我見[J];湘潭師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年02期

5 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

6 劉常云;政策性貸款債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓不具法律效力[J];中國(guó)合作經(jīng)濟(jì);2004年12期

7 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(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

8 丘志喬;略論債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓[J];廣東經(jīng)濟(jì)管理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

9 牛犁耘;;金融債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律性質(zhì)探析[J];金融理論與實(shí)踐;2005年12期

10 羅華;試論債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓限制性規(guī)定[J];四川教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 張川華;;禁止債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓特約效力研究——以《國(guó)際商事合同通則(2004)》第9.1.9條為視角[A];2008全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國(guó)際法）論文集——國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法、國(guó)際環(huán)境法分冊(cè)[C];2008年

2 陳姝，

本文編號(hào)：1980059