【摘要】：票據(jù)除權(quán)判決以法院判決這一公法行為將票據(jù)權(quán)利從票據(jù)本體上剝離，使申請(qǐng)人不須持有票據(jù)，只需依據(jù)法院判決就能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)票據(jù)權(quán)利。票據(jù)除權(quán)判決在大多數(shù)情況下是失票人的有效法寶，卻在個(gè)別情況下成為不法分子的利用對(duì)象。沒有喪失票據(jù)的情形，卻假冒失票前的最后持有人惡意申請(qǐng)除權(quán)判決，不僅侵害了合法持票人的正當(dāng)權(quán)益，也損害了法律的威嚴(yán)，影響交易安全。司法實(shí)踐中，同是為了維護(hù)自己的合法權(quán)益而提起訴訟，當(dāng)事人卻得到截然不同的結(jié)果，這主要是因?yàn)楹戏ǔ制比怂扇〉脑V訟策略不同。綜合分析，合法持票人的訴訟請(qǐng)求能否得到法院的支持，主要涉及兩個(gè)問題——票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的法律效力以及票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的撤銷問題。但是對(duì)于這兩個(gè)問題，目前我國(guó)相關(guān)法律法規(guī)還沒有明文規(guī)定，理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界也存在不同的聲音和做法。法律規(guī)定不明晰，救濟(jì)途徑不明朗，合法持票人的正當(dāng)權(quán)益難以得到有效維護(hù)。因此，對(duì)于票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的研究就顯得必要而迫切。 本文擬圍繞合法持票人的權(quán)利救濟(jì)，從大量司法判例中提煉出相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)，從紛繁復(fù)雜的觀點(diǎn)中整理邏輯思路，綜合運(yùn)用調(diào)查法、文獻(xiàn)研究方法和比較分析法重點(diǎn)對(duì)票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的性質(zhì)、法律效力和票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的撤銷等問題進(jìn)行逐一探討，試圖找出合法持票人捍衛(wèi)自己權(quán)利的最佳途徑，以期對(duì)除權(quán)判決制度的完善和對(duì)實(shí)踐中合法持票人的權(quán)益維護(hù)有所裨益。除引言和結(jié)語外，，本文對(duì)票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的論述分為三個(gè)部分。 第一部分是票據(jù)除權(quán)判決概述。以票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的概念為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，先對(duì)票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的申請(qǐng)條件進(jìn)行介紹，為后文中論述惡意申請(qǐng)除權(quán)判決的情形埋下伏筆。接著對(duì)作出票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的程序——公示催告程序進(jìn)行論述，引出票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的特征，也為下文分析票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的性質(zhì)、法律效力及撤銷等問題打下基礎(chǔ)。 第二部分是票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的性質(zhì)及法律效力。研究票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的法律效力是研究合法持票人的權(quán)利救濟(jì)的根基與關(guān)鍵，而票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的法律效力以其性質(zhì)為基礎(chǔ)，故本部分先對(duì)票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的性質(zhì)加以分析，進(jìn)而對(duì)票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的效力種類及內(nèi)容進(jìn)行剖析。 第三部分是票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的撤銷。本部分先從現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中存在惡意申請(qǐng)除權(quán)判決的情形入手，通過對(duì)比分析司法實(shí)踐中合法持票人可能選擇的救濟(jì)途徑，得出撤銷票據(jù)除權(quán)判決具有現(xiàn)實(shí)需要的結(jié)論；接著，通過對(duì)《民事訴訟法》第223條進(jìn)行解讀，找到撤銷票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的法律依據(jù)；繼而在對(duì)域外立法現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行考察后，得出撤銷票據(jù)除權(quán)判決符合國(guó)際立法趨勢(shì)的結(jié)論。進(jìn)而結(jié)合我國(guó)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定，對(duì)撤銷票據(jù)除權(quán)判決應(yīng)適用的程序以及須滿足的條件作出說明，并對(duì)撤銷票據(jù)除權(quán)判決的法律效果進(jìn)行分析。
[Abstract]:By the public law act of the court judgment, the bill right is stripped from the bill body, so that the applicant does not have to hold the bill, but can realize the bill right only according to the judgment of the court. In most cases, the judgment of bill exclusion right is the effective magic weapon of the person who lost the bill, but in some cases it becomes the object of use by the lawless elements. The situation of not losing the bill, but impersonating the final holder before the loss of the ticket maliciously applies for the judgment of excluding the right, not only infringes the legitimate rights and interests of the legal holder, but also damages the authority of the law and affects the security of the transaction. In judicial practice, both litigants bring lawsuits in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, but the parties get different results, which is mainly due to the different litigation strategies adopted by legal holders of tickets. Synthetically analysis, whether the legal holder's lawsuit request can be supported by the court, mainly involves two questions: the legal effect of the judgment of the bill right of exclusion and the question of the revocation of the judgment of the right of the bill exemption. However, for these two problems, the relevant laws and regulations of our country have not been explicitly stipulated, and there are different voices and practices in the theoretical and practical circles. The legal provisions are unclear, the remedies are unclear, and the legitimate rights and interests of legal holders are difficult to be effectively safeguarded. Therefore, it is necessary and urgent to study the judgment of bill excluding right. This paper focuses on the relief of the rights of legal ticket holders, abstracts the relevant points of dispute from a large number of judicial precedents, collates the logical ideas from the complicated viewpoints, and synthetically applies the investigation method. The methods of literature research and comparative analysis focus on the issues of the nature, legal effect and revocation of the judgment on the right of bill exclusion, in order to find out the best way for the legal holder to defend his own rights. It is beneficial to the perfection of the judgment system and the protection of the rights and interests of the legal holder in practice. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into three parts. The first part is the summary of the judgment of the bill right. Based on the concept of bill exclusion judgment, this paper first introduces the application conditions of bill exclusion judgment, and lays the groundwork for the discussion of the case of maliciously applying for excluding right judgment in the following article. Then, the paper discusses the procedure of making the judgment of the right to remove the bill-the procedure of public notice, which leads to the characteristics of the judgment of the right of exemption of the bill, and lays a foundation for the following analysis of the nature, legal effect and revocation of the judgment of the right of exemption of the bill. The second part is the nature and legal effect of the judgment on the right of bill exclusion. It is the foundation and key to study the legal effect of the judgment on the right of the legal holder, and the legal effect of the judgment is based on its nature, so this part first analyzes the nature of the judgment. Furthermore, it analyzes the types and contents of the validity of the judgment. The third part is the annulment of the judgment of the right of eliminating the bill. This part starts with the situation of malicious application for exemption judgment in real life, through the comparative analysis of the legal ticket holder in judicial practice may choose the relief way, draw the conclusion that the revocation of bill exemption judgment has practical needs; Then, through the interpretation of Article 223 of the Civil procedure Law, the author finds out the legal basis for revoking the judgment of the right to remove bills, and then, after investigating the present situation of legislation abroad, draws the conclusion that the judgment of revocation of the right to remove the right of bill is in line with the trend of international legislation. Combined with the relevant laws and regulations of our country, this paper explains the procedure and the conditions that should be satisfied in the judgment of revoking the right to cancel the bill, and analyzes the legal effect of the judgment of revocation of the right of cancellation of bill.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周小潮;;偽報(bào)票據(jù)喪失問題探討[J];長(zhǎng)沙鐵道學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

2 張雪is;;票據(jù)法修改若干問題探析[J];法律適用;2011年11期

3 李偉群;;我國(guó)票據(jù)喪失補(bǔ)救制度的不足及完善 兼談我國(guó)《票據(jù)法》第15條第3款的修改[J];法律適用;2011年11期

4 李偉群;;除權(quán)判決的效力與票據(jù)善意取得之間的關(guān)系——從中、日票據(jù)法比較的角度[J];法學(xué);2006年06期

5 張自合;;論對(duì)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)法院非訟裁定的認(rèn)可與執(zhí)行[J];海峽法學(xué);2012年03期

6 常珂;票據(jù)除權(quán)判決撤銷問題探討[J];金融與經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年08期

7 劉學(xué)在;公示催告程序的立法完善[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年04期

8 鄭孟狀,何松明;票據(jù)案件訴訟的若干法律問題[J];寧波大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文科學(xué)版);1999年02期

9 劉國(guó)昱;;完善票據(jù)公示催告程序的思考[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2012年12期

10 杜聞;;簡(jiǎn)論確定除權(quán)判決的法律效力[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

本文編號(hào)：2330129