發(fā)布時間：2018-01-13 20:02

  本文關鍵詞：論票據利益償還請求權制度　出處：《山東大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 票據利益 時效期滿 權利保全手續(xù) 利益償還請求權

【摘要】：票據是由出票人簽發(fā)并在法定期限內由出票人或承兌人向持票人支付票據金額且重在流通的有價證券。票據利益償還請求權是指票據權利人未及時行使權利或在行使權利遇到障礙時未依法保全權利以致票據權利滅失的,其仍享有請求義務人償還所獲利益的權利。《中華人民共和國票據法》(以下簡稱《票據法》)規(guī)定了該項請求權,該項請求權產生于票據權利滅失后,故不是票據權利;似乎也不是民事權利,因為該請求權當事人之間不一定存在民事權利義務關系,其似乎存在于民法與票據法之間。以德國為代表的大陸法系國家大多規(guī)定了該請求權,而包括英國、美國等在內的英美法系國家及日內瓦《統一匯票本票法公約》未規(guī)定該請求權。此外,該請求權是一種什么樣的權利,又該如何行使呢?這些問題在各國立法理論和學界也未有定論。立法體系比較完善的德國票據法對此規(guī)定的比較完備,將該請求權規(guī)定為不當得利請求權,適用3年時效;我國票據法認為其是民事權利,在司法實踐中適用普通民事權利2年時效的規(guī)定,其他國家對該請求權規(guī)定地較為簡略。除了立法理論上的爭議,該請求權在司法實踐中的適用也存在許多值得探討的問題,甚至出現過同案不同判的情形。因此,筆者認為該制度不僅是理論問題,而且是實踐性很強的現實問題,然而我國立法規(guī)定得過于簡略,難以為司法實踐提供足夠的依據和明確的指導。遂本文綜合法理學,民商法學,票據法學等相關知識,運用比較、列舉、分析和歸納總結等方法,從一般到特殊,具體問題具體分析等唯物辯證法對該制度進行全面的剖析,希望有助于完善我國票據法。本文第一章是對該請求權的概述:首先從下定義的角度以舉例的方式得出該請求權是票據法為平衡雙方利益實現實質公平而設。然后探討其立法價值,筆者認為該請求權體現了公平、效率和衡平三大價值。最后分析該請求權的構成要件:請求權人包括但不限于失去票據權利的最后持票人;義務人是實際獲益的票據債務人;票據權利因逾期未行使或未保全而滅失;票據債務人因持票人權利滅失而獲益。第二章闡述學界對該請求權性質的爭議,鑒于該請求權是票據法基于衡平理念而設,筆者傾向于將其定性為法定特別請求權。第三章既是本文重點也是難點部分,該章全面分析該請求權的適用問題:該請求權與民事基礎債權不會同時存在;該請求權是往取債權以債務人所在地為行使地;該權利在請求權人與受讓方達成合意的基礎上通知義務人后可讓渡;為了貫徹票據法盡快了結票據關系促進票據流通的立法精神,該請求權應適用1年訴訟時效。第四章首先分析了超過時效、未履行權利保全手續(xù)和缺少票面記載事項三種情形下是否需要法律救濟,得出我國只有在時效期滿的情形下才符合該請求權的行使要件。最后提出對我國票據法的修改意見:票據法應規(guī)定其為特別請求權;將利益償還范圍修訂為票據債務人的實際獲益數額;增加自該請求權成立時起1年訴訟時效的規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The bill is issued by the drawer and within the statutory time limit by the drawer or acceptor holder to pay the amount and focuses on negotiable securities. The bill claim for reinstitution interest refers to the obligee fails to exercise their rights in the exercise of rights or obstacles encountered when failing to benefit that full insurance bill rights loss, the still enjoy the rights. > People's Republic of China negotiable instruments law obligation to repay the request of the profit (hereinafter referred to as the "negotiable instruments law >) the provisions of this claim, the claim was born after the loss of bill right, right is not the bill; it does not seem to be civil rights, because the claim does not necessarily exist between civil parties the rights and obligations, seems to exist in civil law and negotiable instruments law. In Germany as the representative of the civil law countries have stipulated the right of claim, including Britain, the United States and other countries of Anglo American law system And Geneva's unified draft Convention on the law of the provisions of the promissory note > not claim. In addition, the claim is a kind of what kind of rights, how to exercise? These problems in legislation and theory circles is inconclusive. A relatively perfect system of legislative provisions of the negotiable instruments law of Germany in this regard will be provided is complete. The right of claim for unjust enrichment claim, for 3 years of aging; the bill law of our country think it is civil rights and civil rights provisions of the common application in judicial practice in 2 years time, other countries of the claim rules is more simple. In addition to the legislative theory of the dispute, for the claim in judicial practice the problems, even appeared different codefendant situation. Therefore, the author thinks that the system is not only a theoretical problem, but also is a practical problem with very strong practice, but I too national regulations Briefly, to provide sufficient basis and clear guidance for judicial practice. Then this paper comprehensive jurisprudence, civil law, negotiable instruments law and other related knowledge, by comparison, are analyzed and summarized, and other methods, from the general to the specific, comprehensive analysis on the system of the concrete analysis of concrete problems such as materialist dialectics, there is hope help to improve China's negotiable instruments law. The first chapter is an overview of the claim: first from the definition of the angle by way of example that the claim is negotiable for balancing the interests of both the realization of substantive justice. And then discuss the value of legislation, the author thinks that the right of claim reflects the fairness, efficiency and equity the three value elements. The final analysis of this claim: the claimant including but not limited to the holder losing rights on the bill; the duty is the actual benefit of the debtor; rights because of overdue bill Does not exercise or preservation and loss of the debtor; because the ticket holder shall benefit. The second chapter expounds the academic nature of the claim of the dispute, in view of the claim is based on the concept of equity and law of negotiable instruments, the author tends to be characterized as a special legal claim. The third chapter is the emphasis and difficulty part of the chapter, for a comprehensive analysis of the right of claim: the claim and the basis of civil claims does not exist at the same time; the claim is to take the debt to the debtor is located for the exercise of the rights and obligation of notification; based on the claimant and the agreement on Fang Dacheng after transfer; in order to carry out the bill as soon as possible taking notes relations to promote the spirit of the legislation of bill circulation, the claim should be 1 years of limitation of action. The fourth chapter first analyzes the over time, did not fulfill the right of security procedures and lack of coupon items in three ways Under the need of legal remedies, the exercise elements of our country with the claim only in case of the expiration of the limitation period. Finally, on our negotiable instrument law amendments bill law should be regulated as the special right of claim; benefits will be revised to repay range the debtor's actual benefit amount increased since the request; the right to set up when the provisions of the 1 years of the statute of limitations.

【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.287

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 杜文聰;;票據保證責任的法律分析[J];金融理論與實踐;2006年08期

2 何志紅;;票據保證責任特殊性分析[J];消費導刊;2007年03期

3 劉紫微;;淺議票據保證的本質屬性[J];商場現代化;2009年23期

4 樂起星;;票據保證和民事保證辨析[J];法制與社會;2011年07期

5 王宇,王樹元;論票據保證[J];沈陽工業(yè)大學學報;1998年S1期

6 杜文聰;論票據保證責任[J];中南財經大學學報;1999年05期

7 黃晉;有關票據保證制度的幾個問題[J];法學雜志;2000年06期

8 楊秋華;票據保證若干問題研究[J];河北法學;2000年01期

9 王菁華;票據保證責任初探[J];吉林財稅高等�？茖W校學報;2000年03期

10 孫光永;票據保證規(guī)則及其效力[J];杭州金融研修學院學報;2002年05期

相關重要報紙文章 前7條

1 北京同達律師事務所 劉紅宇;是票據保證，還是一般保證？[N];金融時報;2000年

2 祖月　孫瑩;我國票據立法日趨完善[N];國際商報;2008年

3 樊振忠;民法的保證與票據的保證之異同[N];西部法制報;2008年

4 辛華;高法對審理票據糾紛案件作出新規(guī)定[N];中國貿易報;2000年

5 ;有關票據糾紛問題的新規(guī)定[N];市場報;2000年

6 孫得愚;票據保證比較初探[N];江蘇經濟報;2004年

7 最高人民法院民二庭庭長 宋曉明 法官 葉曉青 張雪is;民商事審判若干疑難問題[N];人民法院報;2006年

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 酈毓貝;票據犯罪研究[D];中國人民大學;2003年

2 金錦花;票據上意思表示研究[D];吉林大學;2009年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 劉香;票據保證制度研究[D];煙臺大學;2007年

2 孫蕊;論無效的票據保證[D];吉林大學;2013年

3 田小溪;票據保證法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2013年

4 張黛琳;金融創(chuàng)新背景下我國票據中介機構的法制建設[D];華東政法大學;2015年

5 劉美玲;論票據利益償還請求權制度[D];山東大學;2017年

6 顧殊;票據保證制度研究[D];西南財經大學;2008年

7 張君;我國民間票據中介機構的法律規(guī)制探析[D];華東政法大學;2011年

8 丁康威;票據犯罪研究[D];華東政法學院;2003年

9 朱，

本文編號：1420312