本文選題：混合共同擔保 + 人保　； 參考：《華東政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：擔保制度是市場經(jīng)濟發(fā)展過程中必不可少的法律工具。在民法理論上有一種擔保制度稱之為混合共同擔保,詳釋之,是指在同一個債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系上既存在物的擔保又存在人的擔保的混合型擔保制度。目前我國關(guān)于該擔保制度的法律規(guī)定還不完整,尤其是在本文所提出的第三人追償問題上還出現(xiàn)了法條之間(《物權(quán)法》176條與《擔保法》28條及《擔保法司法解釋》第38條)的沖突,承擔了擔保責任的物上保證人或保證人有權(quán)向主債務(wù)人追償自無爭議,但有時主債務(wù)人會喪失償債能力,有時第三人向主債務(wù)人追償無果,在這些情況下承擔了擔保責任的物上保證人或保證人對其他未盡擔保責任的擔保人有無擔保責任的分攤請求權(quán)?理論界對此問題的爭議也較大,至今未形成通說觀點,本文即針對混合共同擔保中物上保證人和保證人之間的追償問題進行研究以期對此問題作出解答。本文在內(nèi)容上可分為四個部分,各章節(jié)所述內(nèi)容以我國擔保制度為主要依據(jù),并圍繞物上保證人和保證人之間(本文所稱第三人)的追償關(guān)系為中心進行論述。第一部分為混合共同擔保理論界定,以混合共同擔保的基本概念和基本類型為重點,論述了混合共同擔保降低成本、促進融資的作用,并對混合共同擔保三種類型作出區(qū)分,指出本文以第三人物保和人保的結(jié)合為重點研究對象。在該種類型下,我國立法出現(xiàn)了混亂的狀態(tài),理論界對人保和物保之間的地位也存在較大的分歧,有的學者堅持物保優(yōu)于人保說而有的則堅持物保與人保平等說,本文基于民法的公平原則贊同物保與人保平等說。第二部分對本文核心問題即第三人之間的追償權(quán)能否得到法律的認可作出了詳細的論述并對理論界否定追償權(quán)利和肯定追償權(quán)利的觀點進行優(yōu)缺點分析,依本文所持物保與人保平等說以及第三人之間依義務(wù)的同一層次理論構(gòu)成連帶債務(wù)關(guān)系從而肯定混合共同擔保中第三人之間的追償權(quán)。第三部分重點論述了該權(quán)利在法律的性質(zhì)。本文提出兩種權(quán)利:追償權(quán)和代位權(quán),代位權(quán)給追償權(quán)的行使帶來保障,法律應(yīng)當對承擔更多擔保責任的第三人施加更多的保護,因此第三人之間的追償權(quán)利應(yīng)當同時具備追償權(quán)和代位權(quán)這兩種權(quán)利屬性。第四部分對第三人追償?shù)娜N方法進行了分析,認為依照擔保額度的比例分擔各擔保人的擔保責任比較符合物保與人保平等說的觀點。并且,無論是從程序的簡便性上還是在實體意義上第三人追償權(quán)的行使都不應(yīng)當有順位上的限制。
[Abstract]:Guarantee system is an indispensable legal tool in the development of market economy. In the theory of civil law, there is a kind of security system called mixed joint guarantee, which is a mixed security system, which refers to both the existence and the existence of the security in the same creditor's rights and liabilities relationship. At present, the legal provisions on the guarantee system in our country are not complete. In particular, there is also a conflict between the legal articles (Article 176, Article 28 of the Law of Guaranty and Article 38 of the Judicial interpretation of the Law of Guaranty) on the issue of recourse to the third party raised in this paper. The guarantor or guarantor who is liable for the security has the right to recover from the principal debtor without dispute, but sometimes the principal debtor becomes insolvent, and sometimes the third party recovers from the principal debtor without success, In these cases, does the surety or guarantor have a claim for the apportionment of the secured liability against other guarantors who are not covered by the security? There is also a great controversy on this issue in the theoretical circle, so far no general view has been formed. In this paper, the problem of recovery between guarantor and surety in the mixed co-guarantee is studied in order to answer this question. The content of this paper can be divided into four parts. The contents of each chapter are mainly based on the guarantee system of our country, and the relationship between guarantor and surety (the third party in this article) is discussed as the center. The first part is the definition of mixed co-guarantee theory, focusing on the basic concepts and types of mixed co-guarantee, discusses the role of hybrid co-guarantee to reduce costs and promote financing, and makes a distinction between the three types of mixed co-guarantee. It points out that this paper focuses on the combination of the third person and the people's insurance. Under this kind of situation, the legislation of our country has appeared in a state of confusion, and there is also a great difference between the position of PICC and real insurance in the theoretical circle. Some scholars insist that the real estate insurance is superior to the personal insurance theory, while some insist that the property insurance is equal to the people's insurance. Based on the principle of fairness in civil law, this paper agrees with the theory of equality between real estate insurance and personal insurance. The second part discusses the core problem of this paper, that is, whether the right of recourse between the third party can be recognized by law, and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the theory circle's view of negating the right of recourse and affirming the right of recovery. According to the theory of equality between real and personal insurance and the theory of liability between the third parties, the joint and several liability relationship is formed and the right of recovery between the third parties in the mixed joint guarantee is confirmed. The third part focuses on the nature of the right in the law. This paper puts forward two kinds of rights: the right of recourse and the right of subrogation. The right of subrogation brings security to the exercise of the right of recourse. Therefore, the right of recourse between the third parties should have the attributes of both the right of recourse and the right of subrogation. The fourth part analyzes the three methods of the third party's recovery, and thinks that sharing the guaranty liability of each guarantor according to the proportion of the guarantee amount is more in line with the viewpoint of the equality between real insurance and personal insurance. Moreover, the exercise of the third party's right of recourse should not be restricted in order, either from the simplicity of procedure or from the substantive point of view.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 刁其懷;;追及主義抑或轉(zhuǎn)讓價金代位主義——基于《物權(quán)法》第191條[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2014年05期

2 陸劍;;“二輪”承包背景下土地承包經(jīng)營權(quán)制度的異化及其回歸[J];法學;2014年03期

3 陳小君;;構(gòu)筑土地制度改革中集體建設(shè)用地的新規(guī)則體系[J];法學家;2014年02期

4 葉知年;余秋萍;;擔保物權(quán)實現(xiàn)之非訟程序探討[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學院學報;2014年03期

5 郭志京;;也論中國物權(quán)法上的登記對抗主義[J];比較法研究;2014年03期

6 馬萬智;馬越;李娜;;房屋面積測算標準及得房率確定方法研究[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2014年08期

7 陳佳;林建岳;;對實現(xiàn)擔保物權(quán)特別程序主體問題的思考[J];法制與社會;2014年17期

8 張曉偉;;論特殊動產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動的生效要件[J];研究生法學;2014年03期

9 馬越;馬萬智;陳興華;;房地產(chǎn)共有共用面積分攤方法[J];遼寧工程技術(shù)大學學報(自然科學版);2014年12期

10 甘建明;;中國物權(quán)法的意涵與時代特征研究[J];法制與社會;2014年34期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前2條

1 王明華;論擔保物權(quán)的實現(xiàn)[D];山東大學;2014年

2 熊玉梅;中國不動產(chǎn)登記制度變遷研究（1949-2014）[D];華東政法大學;2014年

，

本文編號：1975683