本文選題：保證期間 + 適用��； 參考：《內(nèi)蒙古大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：1995年出臺的《中華人民共和國擔保法》(以下簡稱《擔保法》)中“保證期間”這一詞語最早得以使用。隨后,法律規(guī)定的保證期間在司法界產(chǎn)生了很大的爭議,主要集中對法條的理解上,有的學者認為是訴訟時效,有的學者認為是除斥期間,莫衷一是。2000年最高人民法院公布了《對于適用中華人民共和國擔保法若干問題的解釋》(以下簡稱《(擔保法解釋》),在保證期間問題上雖耗費較多翰墨,可遺憾的是此出臺的《擔保法司法解釋》仍未消除分歧。《擔保法》及其司法解釋的發(fā)布本意是希望能夠全面規(guī)定保證期間,使之內(nèi)容規(guī)范,概念明確,適用流暢,但關(guān)于保證期間的爭議不僅沒有平息,反而愈演愈烈。保證期間理論上的爭議和矛盾,現(xiàn)在已成為了阻礙保證制度很好發(fā)揮作用的重要因素,也不利于糾紛的解決。論文分別對保證期間司法實踐中的四個重要問題分別進行了論述。第一問題主要研究保證期間的性質(zhì)及對司法實務的影響。首先在對學界關(guān)于保證期間性質(zhì)的不同觀點進行分析的基礎上,著重闡述了保證期間為除斥期間的觀點,主要理由如下：與除斥期間一樣,保證期間適用于形成權(quán),且屬于形成權(quán)中的選擇權(quán)；保證期間內(nèi),債權(quán)人只要行使一次形成權(quán),即可使保證期間終結(jié),這與除斥期間是同樣的；訴訟時效經(jīng)過后,權(quán)利人的實體權(quán)利并沒有消失,而是義務人享有相應的抗辯權(quán)而已,因此保證期間完全符合除斥期問的特質(zhì)。第二問題重點分析保證期間的效力,通過法定保證期間及約定保證期間的適用分析,得出我國擔保法以約定保證期間為主,法定保證期間為輔。第三問題主要研究保證期間的開始和結(jié)束的時間,主要討論一般情況和兩種特殊情況,但無論如何,保證期間的起算都應在選擇權(quán)產(chǎn)生之后開始。第四問題主要研究保證期間與訴訟時效的關(guān)系,本文以為保證期間與訴訟時效能夠并存。保證期間與主合同的訴訟時效的關(guān)系中,主合同訴訟時效經(jīng)過保證人可以以此進行抗辯；而在保證期間經(jīng)過后,保證人在債權(quán)人的催款通知書上簽字或者蓋章并不必然是對保證期間的重新確認。
[Abstract]:The term "guarantee period" was first used in the guarantee Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the guarantee Law) issued in 1995. Subsequently, the period of guarantee provided by the law generated great controversy in the judicial circles, mainly focusing on the understanding of the articles of law, some scholars think it is a statute of limitations, some scholars think it is a period of exclusion. In 2000, the Supreme people's Court promulgated the interpretation of certain issues concerning the Application of the guarantee Law of the people's Republic of China. Unfortunately, the judicial interpretation of the Guaranty Law has not yet cleared up the differences. The original intention of the issue of the Guaranty Law and its judicial interpretation is to be able to specify the guarantee period in a comprehensive manner, to make it normative in content, clear in concept, and smooth in application. But the controversy over the guarantee period has not subsided, but has intensified. The theoretical disputes and contradictions during the guarantee period have now become an important factor which hinders the guarantee system to play a good role, and is not conducive to the settlement of disputes. This paper discusses four important issues in judicial practice during the guarantee period. The first question mainly studies the nature of guarantee period and its influence on judicial practice. Firstly, on the basis of the analysis of different viewpoints on the nature of guarantee period in academic circles, this paper focuses on the viewpoint that the guarantee period is a period of exclusion. The main reasons are as follows: like the period of exclusion, the period of guarantee is applicable to the right of formation. And it belongs to the right of choice in the right of formation; during the period of guarantee, the creditor can end the period of guarantee as long as he exercises the right of formation once, which is the same as the period of exclusion; after the period of limitation of action, the substantive rights of the obligee have not disappeared, Instead, the obligor has the corresponding right of defense, so the guarantee period is completely in line with the characteristics of exclusion period. The second question focuses on the validity of the guarantee period. Through the analysis of the application of the legal guarantee period and the agreed warranty period, the author draws the conclusion that the guarantee period is mainly the agreed warranty period, supplemented by the statutory warranty period. The third problem mainly studies the beginning and ending time of the guarantee period, mainly discusses the general situation and two kinds of special circumstances, but in any case, the beginning of the guarantee period should begin after the right of option arises. The fourth question mainly studies the relationship between the period of guarantee and the limitation of action. In the relationship between the period of guarantee and the limitation of action under the principal contract, the surety may defend the period of limitation of action under the principal contract; and after the period of guarantee, The guarantor's signature or seal on the creditor's demand notice is not necessarily a reconfirmation of the guarantee period.
【學位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 李明發(fā);關(guān)于保證期間的幾個問題——兼評《擔保法解釋》關(guān)于保證期間之若干規(guī)定[J];政法論壇;2003年01期

2 奚曉明;論保證期間與訴訟時效[J];中國法學;2001年06期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前4條

1 金萍;論保證期間[D];吉林大學;2004年

2 傅瓊;我國保證期間制度若干問題研究[D];中央民族大學;2010年

3 宋文靜;保證期間制度研究[D];鄭州大學;2010年

4 張輝;論我國保證期間制度的困境與出路[D];湘潭大學;2012年

，

本文編號：2046107