本文選題：債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體 + 債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體要件��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：關(guān)于債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體范圍,學(xué)者們普遍認(rèn)為我國(guó)的債權(quán)人代位權(quán)制度中對(duì)于代位權(quán)客體的規(guī)定——以金錢給付為內(nèi)容的債權(quán)過(guò)于狹窄,但各家觀點(diǎn)又沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一,頗有爭(zhēng)議：小到認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)擴(kuò)展到具有財(cái)產(chǎn)價(jià)值的內(nèi)容的債權(quán),大到認(rèn)為不應(yīng)限制于“債權(quán)”,物權(quán)、訴權(quán)等也應(yīng)納入代位權(quán)客體的范圍。這一論題的研究,對(duì)債權(quán)人代位權(quán)制度的完善具有理論和實(shí)踐雙重意義,值得深究。本文主要才用比較法、一般原理分析法、案例分析法研究。全文共分為四個(gè)部分： 一、債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體概述。這部分主要闡明,本文所論述的債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體是指,代位權(quán)所行使的對(duì)象,實(shí)質(zhì)是妨礙債權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)的債務(wù)人的權(quán)利。 二、債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體的要件。這部分通過(guò)對(duì)債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體要件分析,得出債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體要件包括：債務(wù)人的權(quán)利、有益于責(zé)任財(cái)產(chǎn)、現(xiàn)有權(quán)利、非專屬于債務(wù)人本身的權(quán)利四要件�！皞鶆�(wù)人的權(quán)利”,用以區(qū)分債權(quán)人代位權(quán)與擔(dān)保追討權(quán)及保險(xiǎn)代位權(quán)等其他代位性質(zhì)的權(quán)利；“有益于責(zé)任財(cái)產(chǎn)”,是相對(duì)于我國(guó)《合同法解釋(一)》規(guī)定的“以金錢為給付”這一要件而言的。“以金錢為給付”已經(jīng)超出了財(cái)產(chǎn)性質(zhì)的要求,不僅要求為財(cái)產(chǎn)性質(zhì)的權(quán)利,還進(jìn)一步規(guī)定了其給付內(nèi)容的形式。本文認(rèn)為不應(yīng)為了精簡(jiǎn)訴訟程序而做此限制；“現(xiàn)有權(quán)利”,要求可代位行使的權(quán)利必須是債務(wù)人現(xiàn)有的權(quán)利,如果該權(quán)利屬于一種期待權(quán)或作為一種權(quán)能,如物之使用、收益、處分等,則不得代位行使。另外,有學(xué)者將“合法權(quán)利”和“現(xiàn)有權(quán)利”作為兩個(gè)要件分別列出。筆者認(rèn)為未必要將“合法權(quán)利”作為單獨(dú)的要件列出,歸納到“現(xiàn)有權(quán)利”這一要件中更為恰當(dāng)；“非專屬于債權(quán)人本身”,表明專屬于債務(wù)人本身的權(quán)利不能作為債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體,并且著重指出,債權(quán)的讓與性或繼承性受到法定或意定的限制的情形原則上不導(dǎo)出其不可代位性。 三、債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體范圍討論。這部分主要通過(guò)對(duì)各項(xiàng)實(shí)體權(quán)利的分析,從而得出是否應(yīng)納入到債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體范圍內(nèi),并得出結(jié)論：人身權(quán)、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和繼承權(quán)不符合債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體要件應(yīng)予排除在該范圍之外。合同債權(quán)中,以合同標(biāo)的為劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的合同債權(quán)中,以非金錢財(cái)產(chǎn)為給付為標(biāo)的的債權(quán)應(yīng)納入到代位權(quán)客體范圍；從合同內(nèi)容為劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的合同債權(quán)中,贈(zèng)與請(qǐng)求權(quán)應(yīng)排除；將解除權(quán)、選擇權(quán)等與合同債權(quán)相關(guān)的形成權(quán)也納入到該客體范圍。同時(shí),對(duì)于合同法解釋中的“債權(quán)”應(yīng)解釋為包括因無(wú)因管理、不當(dāng)?shù)美�、侵�?quán)引起的債權(quán),其中侵權(quán)債權(quán)中,因侵犯人身權(quán)利而引起的債權(quán)不應(yīng)納入到這一客體范圍。在物權(quán)中,所有權(quán)和用益物權(quán)一般情況下不能被代位,但是一些特殊的債權(quán)人對(duì)妨礙其債權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)的所有權(quán)或用益物權(quán)具有代位權(quán)；擔(dān)保物權(quán)一般情況下不能被代位,但是若擔(dān)保物權(quán)所擔(dān)保的債權(quán)被代位時(shí)擔(dān)保物權(quán)可以同時(shí)被代位。 四、我國(guó)債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體范圍限制的原因分析及未來(lái)立法建議。分析我國(guó)代位權(quán)客體范圍限制的原因分析并提出了完善建議。 本文的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)在于,結(jié)合前人觀點(diǎn),對(duì)債權(quán)人代位權(quán)客體要件、客體范圍中有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題提出了自己的觀點(diǎn),如對(duì)“現(xiàn)有權(quán)利”的理解,物權(quán)可否成為代位權(quán)問(wèn)題等。
[Abstract]:With regard to the object scope of creditor ' s subrogation , scholars generally agree that the creditor ' s subrogation in our country is too narrow for the object of subrogation . However , it is controversial that it should be extended to the scope of the object of subrogation . The study of this topic is of great significance to the perfection of creditor ' s subrogation system .

The object of creditor ' s subrogation is the object of subrogation , which is essentially the debtor ' s right to hinder the realization of creditor ' s rights .

The article analyses the object of creditor ' s subrogation right , and concludes that the object of creditor ' s subrogation includes : the debtor ' s rights , the benefit to the property of duty , the existing right , the non - exclusive right of the debtor itself , and the debtor ' s right , which is used to distinguish the creditor ' s right of subrogation and the right to recover the right of recovery and the right of subrogation .
The property of " beneficial responsibility " is relative to the requirement of " monetary benefit " in the interpretation of Chinese contract law ( 1 ) . " money - based payment " is beyond the property of property , not only the right of property , but also the form of its benefits . This article holds that this limitation should not be done to streamline the proceedings ;
The author thinks that " legal right " and " existing right " are listed separately .
" The non - exclusive creditor itself " indicates that the rights exclusively owned by the debtor cannot be the object of the creditor ' s subrogation , and it is stressed that the nature of the creditor ' s rights and the nature or inheritance of the creditor ' s rights are subject to the statutory or implied limitation , in principle , the non - substitutability of the creditor ' s rights is not derived .

Third , the scope of creditor ' s subrogation object is discussed . This part mainly derives from the analysis of the entity ' s rights and concludes that it should be included in the object of creditor ' s subrogation , and conclude that the right of person , intellectual property and inheritance do not conform to the object of creditor ' s subrogation .
In the contract creditor ' s right that the contract content is divided into the standard , the gift and the right of request should be ruled out ;
At the same time , the creditor ' s right in the interpretation of contract law should be interpreted as including the creditor ' s rights arising from the absence of management , unjust enrichment and torts , where the creditor ' s rights arising from the infringement of personal rights should not be included in the scope of the object . In the real right , the ownership and the usufruct can not be substituted , but some special creditors have the subrogation right to obstruct the realization of their rights or to use the usufruct .
The security rem cannot be substituted in general , but the security right may be substituted at the same time if the secured creditor ' s right is substituted .

The article analyzes the reasons of the limitation of the object scope of subrogation in our country and puts forward some suggestions for improvement .

The innovation point of this paper is that , in combination with the former ' s viewpoint , the object conditions of creditor ' s subrogation and the dispute in object range are put forward , such as the understanding of " the existing rights " , the possibility of the right of rem as subrogation , etc .
【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】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曾祥生;;論解除權(quán)之行使[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年02期

2 原琳;;贈(zèng)與合同的性質(zhì):諾成性抑或?qū)嵺`性[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年16期

3 黃璞慮;;論無(wú)因管理及其與侵權(quán)行為之界分[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年01期

4 趙海洋;張潔;;論合同約定解除權(quán)的行使[J];公民與法(法學(xué));2011年01期

5 陳朝玉;陳國(guó)銀;;權(quán)利概念的多維性評(píng)析[J];黑龍江史志;2010年11期

6 張潛偉;論受領(lǐng)遲延[J];平原大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

7 孫冬梅;;合同違約中的違約金與定金[J];商丘職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年01期

8 唐正平;繼承權(quán)的性質(zhì)[J];湖南稅務(wù)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年02期

9 趙慶年;;淺議違約責(zé)任的若干問(wèn)題[J];企業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2011年01期

10 唐烈英;;代位權(quán)客體探討[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2040561