【摘要】：隨著社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,交易模式創(chuàng)新必然成為民事主體的選擇。從讓與擔(dān)保模式被理論界的否定到指導(dǎo)案例對(duì)特定賬戶質(zhì)押模式的認(rèn)可,理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界對(duì)新型擔(dān)保的態(tài)度正在逐步的發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變。從質(zhì)權(quán)人實(shí)際占有質(zhì)押標(biāo)的物到質(zhì)權(quán)人控制質(zhì)押標(biāo)的物即成立質(zhì)權(quán);質(zhì)押的標(biāo)的物范圍也隨著前者的變化在立法過程中被改變。使用特定賬戶出質(zhì)從理論和實(shí)務(wù)上都符合我國(guó)質(zhì)押擔(dān)保的規(guī)范和實(shí)際價(jià)值,將其認(rèn)定為質(zhì)押擔(dān)保承認(rèn)其質(zhì)權(quán),完全符合我國(guó)社會(huì)發(fā)展的實(shí)際。質(zhì)權(quán)設(shè)立中存在的兩個(gè)核心問題是質(zhì)權(quán)是否成功設(shè)立和質(zhì)權(quán)人與出質(zhì)人的普通債權(quán)人之間利益的平衡。從實(shí)際的社會(huì)交易模式和動(dòng)產(chǎn)質(zhì)權(quán)的設(shè)立來分析特定賬戶的質(zhì)押效力。最高人民法院在第54號(hào)指導(dǎo)案例,"裁判理由"中認(rèn)定金錢屬于特殊的動(dòng)產(chǎn)。本文肯定了特定賬戶作為出質(zhì)標(biāo)的物的物權(quán)效力,通過借鑒域外法,結(jié)合我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展實(shí)際,嘗試從理論上來修繕我國(guó)質(zhì)權(quán)標(biāo)的物的范圍。作為新型的質(zhì)押擔(dān)保模式,采用特定賬戶作為質(zhì)押標(biāo)的為在理論上還處于探索階段。但在法律實(shí)務(wù)中已經(jīng)被廣泛使用,如在融資借貸、企業(yè)聯(lián)營(yíng)、第三方支付方面十分普遍。在物權(quán)法中規(guī)定物權(quán)的種類和內(nèi)容由法律規(guī)定,最近通過的我國(guó)民法總則中同樣作出了該規(guī)定,立法者似乎在理論上不愿意承認(rèn)對(duì)于物權(quán)種類和內(nèi)容的變動(dòng);但是在實(shí)際的民商事活動(dòng)中,采用特定賬戶作質(zhì)押標(biāo)的物卻因其使用簡(jiǎn)便、實(shí)現(xiàn)質(zhì)權(quán)容易而常常被民事主體所采用。民事法律作為一種社會(huì)規(guī)范,其根本宗旨是為社會(huì)民事主體提供法律保護(hù),是為社會(huì)的發(fā)展提供法律引導(dǎo)。社會(huì)發(fā)展必然導(dǎo)致交易模式的改變,法律若始終保持傳統(tǒng)理念,對(duì)新生事物保持沉默,有違法律的設(shè)立目的。本文從質(zhì)權(quán)法律規(guī)范的立法目的出發(fā),對(duì)特定賬戶作為質(zhì)權(quán)標(biāo)的物的質(zhì)押模式和構(gòu)成進(jìn)行分析,借鑒其他國(guó)家和地區(qū)的質(zhì)押擔(dān)保制度,對(duì)我國(guó)質(zhì)押擔(dān)保的出質(zhì)標(biāo)的物種范圍進(jìn)行完善�？隙ㄌ囟ㄙ~戶作為出質(zhì)標(biāo)的物的物權(quán)效力,使特定賬戶成為受法律保護(hù)的質(zhì)押標(biāo)的物。主要分為四部分,第一部分對(duì)現(xiàn)有質(zhì)權(quán)做了梳理,對(duì)新型的質(zhì)押模式做一個(gè)概念上的界定,簡(jiǎn)要分析將特定賬戶作為出質(zhì)標(biāo)的物的價(jià)值和意義。第二部分對(duì)常見非典型質(zhì)押擔(dān)保模式做了法律關(guān)系的分析,從該種模式的法律關(guān)系、公示方式、實(shí)現(xiàn)質(zhì)權(quán)方面做了詳細(xì)論證。第三部分從比較法角度對(duì)該問題做對(duì)比分析并提出借鑒的可行性。第四部分通過借鑒其他國(guó)家和地區(qū)的質(zhì)押法律規(guī)范提出我國(guó)動(dòng)產(chǎn)質(zhì)權(quán)內(nèi)容的立法修改、法律解釋、指導(dǎo)案例強(qiáng)化等內(nèi)容。
[Abstract]:With the development of social economy, the innovation of transaction mode must become the choice of civil subject. From the negation of the transfer guarantee model to the approval of the specific account pledge model in the guiding cases, the attitude of the theoretical and practical circles towards the new type of guarantee is gradually changing. The scope of the subject matter of pledge is changed in the legislative process with the change of the subject matter of pledge, from the actual possession of the subject matter of pledge to the control of the subject matter of pledge by the mortgagor. The use of specific account pledge accords with the norms and practical value of pledge guarantee in theory and practice, and it is considered as pledge guarantee to recognize its pledge right, which is completely in line with the reality of social development in our country. The two core problems in the establishment of pledge are whether the pledge is successfully established or not and the balance between the interests of the mortgagor and the common creditor of the mortgagor. This paper analyzes the validity of pledge of specific account from the actual social transaction mode and the establishment of chattel pledge. In guiding case No. 54, the Supreme people's Court decided that money was a special movable property. This paper affirms the validity of specific account as the right of the subject matter of pledge. By referring to the extraterritorial law and combining the reality of our country's social and economic development, this paper attempts to repair the scope of the subject matter of pledge in our country theoretically. As a new type of pledge guarantee mode, the use of specific account as the pledge object is still in the exploration stage in theory. However, it has been widely used in legal practice, such as financing and lending, joint venture and third party payment. The category and content of real right are stipulated by law in the real right law, which is also stipulated in the recently adopted general principles of civil law of our country. The legislator seems unwilling to admit the change of the kind and content of real right in theory; However, in the actual civil and commercial activities, the use of specific accounts as the subject matter of pledge is often used by civil subjects because of its simple use and easy realization of pledge rights. As a social norm, civil law aims at providing legal protection for civil subjects and legal guidance for the development of society. The social development will inevitably lead to the change of the transaction mode. If the law always maintains the traditional idea and keeps silent on the new things, it is against the purpose of the establishment of the law. Based on the legislative purpose of the legal norm of pledge, this paper analyzes the pledge mode and composition of specific account as the subject matter of pledge, and draws lessons from the pledge guarantee system of other countries and regions. The scope of the subject matter of pledge guarantee in China is improved. Confirm the validity of specific account as the right of pledge subject matter, make the specific account become the subject matter of pledge protected by law. It is mainly divided into four parts. The first part combs the existing pledge, makes a conceptual definition of the new pledge mode, and briefly analyzes the value and significance of taking the specific account as the subject matter of pledge. The second part analyzes the legal relationship of the common atypical pledge guarantee mode, from the legal relationship of the model, publicity mode, the realization of pledge made a detailed demonstration. The third part makes a comparative analysis of the problem from the perspective of comparative law and puts forward the feasibility of reference. The fourth part through drawing lessons from other countries and regions of pledge legal norms put forward the content of China's chattel pledge legislative amendment legal interpretation guidance case strengthening and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 崔建遠(yuǎn);;“擔(dān)�！北妗趽�(dān)保泛化弊端嚴(yán)重的思考[J];政治與法律;2015年12期

2 高圣平;;應(yīng)收賬款質(zhì)權(quán)登記的法理——以《應(yīng)收賬款質(zhì)押登記辦法》的修改為中心[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2015年06期

3 陳本寒;;新類型擔(dān)保的法律定位[J];清華法學(xué);2014年02期

4 許明月;;論現(xiàn)代擔(dān)保市場(chǎng)法律規(guī)制的理念與模式[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2013年06期

5 胡呂銀;;擔(dān)保權(quán)屬性與各種擔(dān)保方式的重新界定[J];法學(xué);2013年08期

6 高圣平;;公司擔(dān)保相關(guān)法律問題研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2013年02期

7 崔建遠(yuǎn);;合同解釋與法律解釋的交織[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

8 劉保玉;;我國(guó)擔(dān)保物權(quán)制度的立法改進(jìn)與規(guī)則完善[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2012年07期

9 邸天利;;非典型擔(dān)保共性解析[J];政法論壇;2011年01期

10 高圣平;張堯;;中國(guó)擔(dān)保物權(quán)制度的發(fā)展與非典型擔(dān)保的命運(yùn)[J];中國(guó)人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 梁慧星;;是“債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓”還是“權(quán)利質(zhì)押”[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2195150