【摘要】：代物清償是債權(quán)人實(shí)現(xiàn)其債權(quán),消滅債的一種方法。代物清償是在存在原定債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系的情況下,因?yàn)樵瓊年P(guān)系的雙方當(dāng)事人有提出以現(xiàn)實(shí)的他種給付代替原定給付的合意并且債務(wù)人完成現(xiàn)實(shí)給付而成立的合同。代物清償制度在德國、日本以及我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的“民法”中都有明確規(guī)定,但在我國民法中代物清償仍沒有相應(yīng)的法律法規(guī),因此代物清償?shù)南嚓P(guān)問題在學(xué)術(shù)界仍有諸多爭議。代物清償?shù)男再|(zhì)有類似買賣說或互易說、清償契約說、特殊變更契約說、債務(wù)更新說、有償契約說、要物契約說。但我國的司法實(shí)務(wù)和理論界通說為代物清償?shù)囊锲跫s說和有償契約說,即代物清償?shù)某闪⒉粌H要有雙方的合意更要有現(xiàn)實(shí)的受領(lǐng)他種給付,同時(shí)代物清償?shù)某闪⒁彩且詡鶛?quán)人拋棄原定給付的受領(lǐng)為代價(jià)的。根據(jù)代物清償在我國司法實(shí)踐的情況表明,先前的司法實(shí)踐因?qū)Υ锴鍍斚嚓P(guān)問題的爭議,即法院判決依據(jù)的不同,會(huì)導(dǎo)致同案不同判結(jié)果的發(fā)生,有違公平原則。而在2012年判決書上明確認(rèn)定“代物清償法律關(guān)系”成為公報(bào)案例后,代物清償在判決中有了較為統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但仍未以立法的形式在我國法律法規(guī)中出現(xiàn),因此代物清償制度在我國的立法是十分必要的。我國應(yīng)借鑒代物清償制度在其他大陸法系國家的立法現(xiàn)狀并得到啟示,構(gòu)建代物清償制度在我國的立法。我國已承認(rèn)代物清償制度,同時(shí)法院在判決書中亦明確了代物清償?shù)姆申P(guān)系。作為一個(gè)大陸法系國家,要根據(jù)法定形式制定發(fā)布具體的法律文件,構(gòu)成完整的成文法。因此我國應(yīng)借鑒其他已有代物清償制度國家成果的精華,對(duì)代物清償?shù)男再|(zhì)以及效力等問題加以界定,使代物清償制度能早日在我國的民法中得以體現(xiàn),完善我國的民法體系,對(duì)我國的代物清償法律關(guān)系進(jìn)行指導(dǎo)。
[Abstract]:Subrogation is a method for creditors to realize their creditor's rights and eliminate their debts. Subrogation is a contract formed when there is the original creditor's debt relationship because the parties to the original debt relationship have put forward to replace the original payment agreement with realistic alternative payment and the debtor has completed the actual payment. The system of subrogation is clearly stipulated in the Civil Law of Germany, Japan and Taiwan, but there are still no corresponding laws and regulations in the Civil Law of our country. Therefore, there are still many disputes in academic circles about the settlement of subrogation. The nature of subrogation is similar to the theory of sale or exchange, the theory of settlement contract, the theory of special variation contract, the theory of debt renewal, the theory of paid contract, and the theory of contract of things. However, the judicial practice and theoretical circles in our country have generally said that the contract of goods to be paid for and the contract of compensation, that is, the establishment of the settlement of goods for the purpose not only requires the agreement of both parties, but also needs to receive and pay for other goods in reality. At the same time, the establishment of the settlement of goods at the expense of creditors to abandon the original payment of the payment as a price. According to the judicial practice of subrogation in our country, the previous judicial practice, because of the dispute about the settlement of subrogation, that is, the different basis of court judgment, will lead to the occurrence of different adjudication results in the same case, which is contrary to the principle of fairness. However, in the judgment of 2012, it was clearly recognized that "the legal relationship of settlement of goods by subrogation" became a case in the bulletin, and there was a more unified standard in the judgment of settlement of goods, but it still did not appear in the form of legislation in the laws and regulations of our country. Therefore, it is very necessary to legislate the subrogation system in our country. Our country should draw lessons from the legislation status quo of subrogation system in other countries of continental legal system and get enlightenment, and construct the legislation of subrogation system in our country. Our country has recognized the system of subrogation, at the same time, the court has made clear the legal relation in the judgment. As a civil law country, it is necessary to formulate and issue specific legal documents according to the legal form, which constitutes a complete statutory law. Therefore, our country should draw lessons from the essence of the achievements of other countries, define the nature and effectiveness of the subrogation, so that the subrogation system can be reflected in the civil law of our country as soon as possible, and perfect the civil law system of our country. Guide the legal relationship of subrogation in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 邵宗日;;代物清償糾紛成因及其對(duì)策的實(shí)務(wù)分析——以法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)為視角[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2007年29期

2 種法杰;;代物清償合同法律性質(zhì)分析[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年09期

3 龔林莉;馬月;;論代物清償合同之性質(zhì)及效力[J];思想戰(zhàn)線;2011年S2期

4 胡家龍;“代物清償”的成因及對(duì)策[J];法律適用;1994年11期

5 崔軍;;代物清償?shù)幕疽?guī)則及實(shí)務(wù)應(yīng)用[J];法律適用;2006年07期

6 其木提;;代物清償協(xié)議的效力——最高人民法院(2011)民提字第210號(hào)民事判決評(píng)釋[J];交大法學(xué);2013年03期

7 崔建遠(yuǎn);;代物清償與保證的聯(lián)立分析[J];東方法學(xué);2011年05期

8 胡家龍;經(jīng)濟(jì)審判中的“代物清償”[J];法學(xué);1994年12期

9 高治;;代物清償預(yù)約研究——兼論流擔(dān)保制度的立法選擇[J];法律適用;2008年08期

10 盧文兵;;第三人代物清償?shù)乃痉ㄕJ(rèn)定和責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];人民司法;2013年18期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 朱成良;代物清償借款約定的法律效力[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 程鈺明;代物清償制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 劉鳳芝;論代物清償[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 王臻;買賣型擔(dān)保問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

4 謝森;不動(dòng)產(chǎn)代物清償預(yù)約的權(quán)利實(shí)現(xiàn)[D];山東大學(xué);2016年

5 連靜;代物清償?shù)膶?shí)務(wù)問題研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2016年

6 許喜善;代物清償?shù)牧⒎?gòu)建[D];延邊大學(xué);2016年

7 趙亞靜;代物清償制度研究[D];上海師范大學(xué);2016年

8 鄭玉祥;代物清償?shù)睦碚撆c實(shí)踐問題研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2008年

9 于靖文;代物清償法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

10 劉毅;代物清償制度研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2308059