本文選題：補充性給付 + 特殊法律地位產(chǎn)生的補充性給付��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：民法上的補充性給付實為實體法賦予債權(quán)人保障其權(quán)利完整實現(xiàn)的重要途徑,使債權(quán)人在債務(wù)人沒有財產(chǎn)或者財產(chǎn)不足以清償債務(wù)時,得以請求補充債務(wù)人就該未足額部分債務(wù)進(jìn)行補充清償。補充性給付在類型上依照補充債務(wù)人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的原因之不同,可分為特殊法律地位產(chǎn)生的補充性給付和非因特殊法律地位產(chǎn)生的補充性給付。債權(quán)人如何才能順利地通過訴訟使補充債務(wù)人承擔(dān)補充清償責(zé)任,在理論上缺乏足夠的討論。由于嚴(yán)格地遵循實體法的規(guī)定,為獲得完整的債務(wù)清償,得在前后訴訟中分別起訴主債務(wù)人和補充債務(wù)人,此舉不僅給債權(quán)人帶來不便,也給法院的司法資源造成極大耗費。因此,為減少權(quán)利實現(xiàn)的期間和步驟,當(dāng)事人往往把主債務(wù)人和補充債務(wù)人列為共同被告,在同一訴訟程序中主張權(quán)利。通過理論分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn),該共同訴訟以主觀的預(yù)備合并之訴為該訴訟合并的理論前提,并根據(jù)補充性給付的不同類型,訴訟標(biāo)的之法律關(guān)系在訴訟程序中表現(xiàn)出單復(fù)數(shù)之差別,特殊法律地位產(chǎn)生的補充性給付僅是主債務(wù)人所承擔(dān)責(zé)任的分擔(dān),與主債務(wù)同屬一個訴訟標(biāo)的,而其他類型的補充性給付則來源于實體法上另外的請求權(quán),與主債務(wù)分屬不同訴訟標(biāo)的,進(jìn)而兩者之共同訴訟在訴訟形態(tài)上亦分別呈現(xiàn)出必要共同訴訟和普通共同訴訟之不同。此訴的主觀合并已然成為實務(wù)上處理補充性給付訴訟的基本途徑,雖確有防止裁判抵觸、保證糾紛一次解決、節(jié)省當(dāng)事人訴訟成本以及保證原告實體權(quán)益等法律效果,但也因此訴訟上的常規(guī)操作而面臨著諸多現(xiàn)實難題,主要集中表現(xiàn)在未能給補充債務(wù)人提供必要的程序保障,由此引發(fā)補充債務(wù)人缺乏程序參與的自主性、其審級利益遭受侵害并且易受法院財產(chǎn)保全措施侵害等問題。為妥善解決此一系列補充性給付在訴訟上的弊病,本文建議應(yīng)當(dāng)區(qū)分特殊法律地位產(chǎn)生的補充性給付和其他類型的補充性給付,以提出相應(yīng)的建設(shè)性構(gòu)想。一方面,對于前者,有必要擴張債權(quán)人所得主債務(wù)之確定判決的執(zhí)行力,使該效力直接及于補充債務(wù)人的固有財產(chǎn),債權(quán)人不必為了取得對補充債務(wù)人的執(zhí)行名義再專門向其提起給付之訴;另一方面,就其他類型的補充性給付案件訴訟所為修補方法,仍應(yīng)強調(diào)補充債務(wù)人的訴訟參與,并著眼于重新構(gòu)建該類型案件的共同訴訟的各個環(huán)節(jié),以盡可能兼顧好債權(quán)人和補充債務(wù)人的切身利益。
[Abstract]:The supplementary payment in the civil law is an important way for the creditor to guarantee the complete realization of his right under the substantive law, so that when the debtor has no property or the property is insufficient to pay off the debt,A supplementary debtor may be requested to replenish and pay off the outstanding part of the debt.The type of supplementary payment can be divided into special legal status supplementary payment and supplementary payment not due to special legal status according to the reasons why the supplementary debtor bears the responsibility.There is a lack of theoretical discussion on how the creditor can smoothly make the supplementary debtor assume the supplementary liability through litigation.In order to obtain complete debt satisfaction, the principal debtor and the supplementary debtor must be sued separately in the litigation, which not only brings inconvenience to the creditors, but also causes great consumption of the judicial resources of the court because of strictly following the provisions of the substantive law.Therefore, in order to reduce the period and steps of the realization of the right, the parties often treat the main debtor and the supplementary debtor as co-defendants and claim their rights in the same proceedings.Through the theoretical analysis, it can be found that the joint action is based on the subjective pre-merger action as the theoretical premise, and according to the different types of supplementary payment, the legal relationship of the subject matter of the lawsuit shows the difference of single and multiplicity in the litigation procedure.The supplementary payment arising from the special legal status is only the share of the liability of the principal debtor and belongs to the same subject of the action as the main debt, while the other types of supplementary payment come from another claim in substantive law.The joint action is different from the main debt in the form of the necessary joint action and the common joint action.The subjective merger of this lawsuit has become the basic way to deal with the supplementary payment litigation in practice. Although it does prevent the conflict of the referee, guarantee the settlement of the dispute once, save the litigant's litigation cost and guarantee the plaintiff's entity's rights and interests, etc.But because of this, the routine operation of litigation is faced with many practical difficulties, which mainly focus on the failure to provide necessary procedural protection to the supplementary debtor, which leads to the lack of autonomy of the supplementary debtor to participate in the procedure.Its trial interests are infringed and vulnerable to court property preservation measures and other issues.In order to properly solve the disadvantages of this series of supplementary payment in litigation, this paper suggests that the special legal status should be distinguished from other types of supplementary payment, in order to put forward the corresponding constructive ideas.On the one hand, for the former, it is necessary to expand the enforcement of the deterministic judgment on the principal debt acquired by the creditor, so that the effect is directly related to the supplement of the debtor's inherent property.The creditor does not have to bring a special action against the supplementary debtor in the name of execution; on the other hand, in the case of other types of supplementary payment cases, it is still important to emphasize the participation of the supplementary debtor in the proceedings,It also focuses on reconstructing the joint action of this type of case in order to balance the vital interests of creditors and supplementary debtors as best as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923;D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬偉陽;;積極補充性——《羅馬規(guī)約》補充性原則的最新發(fā)展[J];西安政治學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年05期

2 曹裕霖;;論民事習(xí)慣在未來民法典中的應(yīng)有地位[J];科技咨詢導(dǎo)報;2007年15期

3 高光;;美國:政府撥款,強調(diào)公平[J];婦女生活(現(xiàn)代家長);2013年07期

4 時學(xué);;美國學(xué)者羅普教授談北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定等問題[J];拉丁美洲研究;1993年04期

5 趙信會;宋新龍;;民事抗訴基礎(chǔ)的轉(zhuǎn)換與補充性抗訴機制的建立[J];河北法學(xué);2010年04期

6 李俊;;淺議刑法補充性規(guī)則的法律適用[J];中國檢察官;2013年24期

7 董慧凝;;論《公司法》補充性規(guī)范與公司章程自由[J];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院學(xué)報;2009年01期

8 葉必豐;;學(xué)術(shù)之路的碎片[J];法制資訊;2012年12期

9 張明楷;刑法在法律體系中的地位——兼論刑法的補充性與法律體系的概念[J];法學(xué)研究;1994年06期

10 劉瑞豐;論行政訴訟有限審查規(guī)則和補充性調(diào)查規(guī)則[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2002年04期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 楊超;旅游小費應(yīng)是一種補充性支付[N];中國經(jīng)濟導(dǎo)報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐晚豐;補充性給付訴訟問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：1740150