發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-30 07:29

  本文選題：混合共同擔(dān)保 + 物保��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：近幾年來(lái),混合共同擔(dān)保中的追償權(quán)問題,業(yè)已成為各個(gè)法院審判實(shí)務(wù)中無(wú)法規(guī)避、急需解決的爭(zhēng)議話題。本文試圖從第三人提供的他物保與人保并在這一情形下追償?shù)目尚行耘c合理性角度出發(fā),擇重探討如何確定、計(jì)算追償?shù)木唧w分擔(dān)額及追償過程中的必要限制,希冀為將來(lái)的司法解釋肯定相互追償權(quán)提供立法依據(jù)和操作規(guī)則。本文對(duì)癥追償問題采用的是循序遞進(jìn)地方式展開論述:一是通過分析各擔(dān)保主體間的法律關(guān)系,追償?shù)姆苫A(chǔ)—混合擔(dān)保中擔(dān)保義務(wù)主體間存在連帶債務(wù)關(guān)系,更進(jìn)一步的道明實(shí)際履行了代償義務(wù)的擔(dān)保人有權(quán)向尚未履行代償義務(wù)的那個(gè)擔(dān)保人追償;二是在認(rèn)可相互追償權(quán)的前提下,分析、論證、舉例說(shuō)明采取何種科學(xué)合理的計(jì)算規(guī)則來(lái)確定數(shù)個(gè)擔(dān)保人各自應(yīng)當(dāng)分擔(dān)的份額;三是追償也不是不受任何限制的,擔(dān)保人的追償權(quán)有必要進(jìn)行限制,包括序位的限制、意思自治的限制、保證方式的限制、擔(dān)保期間的限制等等,使追償過程更加符合法理、情理。通過本文辨證分析看出目前我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》第176條的規(guī)定還難以稱得上完美,仍有進(jìn)一步改善的需求。簡(jiǎn)單的否定擔(dān)保人間的相互追償權(quán),輕視追償權(quán)的相關(guān)問題,終將導(dǎo)致司法裁判的復(fù)雜化,法律適用的差別化,當(dāng)事人利益的破壞化。本文具體分五個(gè)部分展開敘述。第一部分引言,提出問題的癥結(jié)所在,以案例的形式更加生動(dòng)形象的說(shuō)明現(xiàn)今審判實(shí)務(wù)中存在的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn):履行了代償義務(wù)的擔(dān)保人能否向未履行代償義務(wù)的擔(dān)保人追償,追償?shù)姆绞椒椒ㄈ绾蔚�。第二部分概述混合共同�?dān)保的概念與類型、責(zé)任關(guān)系,厘清相關(guān)概念、類型與責(zé)任關(guān)系的同時(shí),為下文著重?cái)⑹鲎穬敊?quán)可行性和合理性問題進(jìn)行鋪墊。第三部分重點(diǎn)討論混合共同擔(dān)保追償問題。對(duì)癥各家爭(zhēng)鳴的不同觀點(diǎn),辯證的提出自己的意見,應(yīng)容許擔(dān)保人間彼此的追償權(quán),著重論證了混合共同擔(dān)保中擔(dān)保人相互追償?shù)暮侠硇院涂尚行�。第四部分詳述追償�(shù)姆蓊~與限制。關(guān)于追償?shù)姆蓊~,實(shí)踐中主要存在兩種做法,一是按照人數(shù)平均分擔(dān),二是按照比例分擔(dān)。按照比例分擔(dān)似乎更科學(xué)、合理,也便于當(dāng)事人接受,使裁判的社會(huì)效果更加明顯,并舉例予以說(shuō)明。且提出按照比例分擔(dān)的計(jì)算方法必須厘清兩個(gè)問題,一是僅存在于逾額混合共同擔(dān)保中,二是除去債務(wù)人自己提供的自物保后計(jì)算份額。關(guān)于追償?shù)南拗茊栴},則從序位、意思自治、保證方式和擔(dān)保期間四方面進(jìn)行限制論述。第五部分總結(jié)全文,得出結(jié)論。再次指出將來(lái)的法律或司法解釋對(duì)追償問題無(wú)法回避,必須作出明確的規(guī)定,至少也該當(dāng)明確以下叁個(gè)問題:第一,需明確第三人提供他物保和人保并存時(shí),履行了代償義務(wù)的人可以向未履行代償義務(wù)的人追償。第二,認(rèn)可相互追償權(quán)的前提下,明確追償份額的計(jì)算方法。第三,明確追償份額的計(jì)算方法,還須明確追償至少有順位限制,僅能先向終極義務(wù)人主債務(wù)人追償,主債務(wù)人不能清償部分,其他被追償人始得負(fù)責(zé)。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the right of recourse in the mixed joint guarantee has become a controversial topic which can not be avoided and urgently solved in the trial practice of various courts. This article tries to discuss how to determine and calculate the specific points of recourse from the perspective of the feasibility and rationality of the third party's material insurance and human insurance and the pursuit of compensation in this case. The necessary restrictions in the process of burden and recourse are expected to provide legislative basis and operational rules for the future judicial interpretation of mutual recourse. This paper uses a sequential progressive discussion on the issue of symptomatic recovery: one is to analyze the legal relationship between the various guaranty subjects, the legal basis of the recovery, the guarantee obligation in the mixed guarantee. There is a joint debt relationship between the subjects, and further clear that the guarantor who actually performs the obligation of compensation has the right to recourse to the guarantor who has not fulfilled the obligation of compensation. Two, on the premise of recognition of the mutual compensation right, analysis, demonstration, and illustration of what scientific and reasonable rules of calculation are taken to determine the respective points of the guarantor. The three is that the recourse is not unrestricted, and the right of the guarantor's recourse is restricted, including the restriction of the preface, the restriction of the autonomy of the meaning, the limitation of the way of guarantee, the limitation of the guarantee period and so on, so that the process of recourse is more in accordance with the jurisprudence and the reason. Through the dialectical analysis of this article, we have seen the 176th articles of the property law in China. The provisions are still difficult to be perfect and still have the need for further improvement. Simply denying the mutual recourse of the guaranty and ignoring the related issues of the right of recourse will eventually lead to the complexity of the judiciary, the differentiation of the application of the law, and the destruction of the interests of the parties. This article is specifically described in five parts. The crux of the problem lies in a more vivid description of the controversial focus in the practice of the present trial in the form of case: whether the guarantor who has fulfilled the obligation of compensation can recourse to the guarantor of the obligation unfulfilled, and how to recover it. The second part outlines the concept and type of the mixed co guarantee, the relationship of responsibility, Li Qingxiang At the same time, the third part focuses on the discussion of the problem of the recovery of the right of compensation for the right of recourse. The third part focuses on the discussion of the problem of the mixed joint guarantee recourse. The rationality and feasibility of mutual compensation in the guarantee. The fourth part details the share and limitation of recourse. In practice, there are two main practices in the practice of recourse, one is the average share of the number and the two is proportionally shared. It seems more scientific, reasonable and convenient for the parties to accept the social effect of the referee. The results are more obvious and are illustrated with examples. And it is suggested that the proportionally shared calculation method must clarify two problems, one is only in the excess of mixed joint guarantee, and the two is to remove the post guarantee calculation share of the debtor itself. The limitation on recovery is from the preface, the autonomy of the meaning, the way of guarantee and the Quartet during the guarantee. The fifth part summarizes the full text and draws a conclusion. Again, it is pointed out that the future law or judicial interpretation can not be avoided. It must make clear provisions and at least to clear the following three questions: first, when the third people provide him with the coexistence of the insurer's insurance, the person who has fulfilled the obligation of compensation can not be carried out. Compensation for compensation. Second, under the premise of recognition of mutual recourse, clear the calculation method of the share of recourse. Third, clear the calculation method of the share of recourse, it must be clear that the recourse has at least a cis limit, it can only be recourse to the ultimate obligor's principal debtor, the main debtor can not be paid off, and the other is responsible for the recourse.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 程嘯;;保證與擔(dān)保物權(quán)并存之研究[J];法學(xué)家;2005年06期

2 楊文杰;;混合共同擔(dān)保人內(nèi)部追償問題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2009年10期

3 王志皓;;論混合共同擔(dān)保的責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1954458