本文選題：票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛 + 特殊性�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國目前沒有專門的票據(jù)訴訟程序，票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的司法救濟(jì)途徑只有普通訴訟程序和督促程序兩種，其中普通訴訟程序是最常使用的救濟(jì)程序。但是票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛較其他民事糾紛而言，具有非常明顯的特殊性，其中票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛涉及的法律關(guān)系相對單一、糾紛內(nèi)容相對清晰明確、糾紛當(dāng)事人容易確定、糾紛對解決的期限要求較高等特點最為突出。而我國現(xiàn)行的普通訴訟程序的設(shè)置并沒有充分考慮票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的特殊性，審理程序復(fù)雜、訴訟耗時長、無法及時、準(zhǔn)確的調(diào)整票據(jù)關(guān)系。而中國式困境下的督促程序因受信用體系不完善、程序設(shè)置不合理以及自身程序特點等原因的影響，在解決票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛方面始終不盡人意。通過對于德國、日本票據(jù)訴訟制度的考察，以及對于我國票據(jù)市場迅猛發(fā)展的分析和民事訴訟制度繁簡分流轉(zhuǎn)型要求的適應(yīng)，我國應(yīng)該設(shè)立專門的票據(jù)訴訟程序，形成票據(jù)訴訟程序、普通訴訟程序、督促程序之間的分流與轉(zhuǎn)化。 本文共分為分五個部分，首先對于票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛予以清晰界定、其次通過我國票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛解決的司法現(xiàn)狀的分析以及其他國家或地區(qū)票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛司法救濟(jì)途徑的考察、然后羅列出我國增設(shè)票據(jù)訴訟程序的必要性和可行性、最后提出我國票據(jù)訴訟程序的構(gòu)建，這是本文的基本脈絡(luò)。具體而言，本文各部分的主要內(nèi)容為： 第一部分，票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的界說。本部分主要通過對票據(jù)法律關(guān)系的梳理明確了票據(jù)糾紛的范圍，進(jìn)而對于票據(jù)糾紛中的票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛予以了界定，對于票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的特殊性進(jìn)行了深入的挖掘。該部分是本文的法理基礎(chǔ)，對于票據(jù)訴訟程序的研究主要是基于票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的特殊性來展開的。 第二部分，我國票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛解決的司法現(xiàn)狀。如上所述，普通訴訟程序和督促程序是我國目前化解票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛的兩大途徑，但是面臨著救濟(jì)不力的困境，這是我們進(jìn)行票據(jù)訴訟程序研究的價值所在，也是本文研究脈絡(luò)中的論證起點。 第三部分，其他國家或地區(qū)票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛司法救濟(jì)途徑的考察。該部分從票據(jù)法系入手，，著重對與我國票據(jù)法系相同，訴訟制度類似的德國和日本的票據(jù)訴訟制度進(jìn)行了介紹，從中我們發(fā)現(xiàn)德國、日本非常注重票據(jù)無因性、文義性等特點，設(shè)置了符合票據(jù)權(quán)利糾紛特殊性的票據(jù)訴訟程序來迅速、快捷的化解票決權(quán)利糾紛，這為我國票據(jù)訴訟制度的改革提供了極具參考價值的經(jīng)驗。 第四部分，我國增設(shè)票據(jù)訴訟程序的必要性和可行性。通過仔細(xì)分析，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)我國迅猛發(fā)展的票據(jù)市場需要高效、便捷的票據(jù)訴訟程序，繁簡分流的訴訟制度轉(zhuǎn)型思路和商事審判獨立化的趨向也要求增設(shè)票據(jù)訴訟程序。此外票據(jù)權(quán)利的特殊性和德日兩國的票據(jù)訴訟制度為增設(shè)票據(jù)訴訟程序提供了可行性。 第五部分，我國票據(jù)訴訟程序的構(gòu)建。本部分關(guān)于程序的構(gòu)建主要從與現(xiàn)有程序分流與轉(zhuǎn)化、程序自身高效、便捷兩大理念出發(fā)，對于票據(jù)訴訟程序的適用范圍、管轄問題、證據(jù)方法、判決后程序設(shè)置等方面進(jìn)行了設(shè)計，實現(xiàn)督促程序、票據(jù)訴訟程序、普通訴訟程序之間的對接，以期達(dá)到案件分流、程序與案件相當(dāng)、當(dāng)事人程序擇權(quán)利益充實的目標(biāo)。
[Abstract]:There is no special procedure in our country at present. There are only two kinds of judicial remedy for the dispute of bill rights. The ordinary procedure is the most common remedy procedure. But the dispute of bill rights is more unusual than other civil disputes, among which the bill rights dispute is involved. The legal relationship is relatively simple, the content of the dispute is relatively clear and clear, the parties to the dispute are easy to determine, the dispute is most prominent in the time limit for solving the dispute, and the current general procedure in our country does not fully consider the particularity of the bill rights dispute, the procedure is complicated and the lawsuit is time-consuming, so it can not be timely and accurate. Under the influence of the imperfect credit system, the unreasonable program setting and the characteristics of its own procedure, the supervision procedure under the Chinese dilemma has always been unsatisfactory in solving the dispute over the bill rights. In the analysis and the adaptation of the requirements of the system of civil litigation, our country should set up special procedure of bill litigation to form the procedure of bill, the common procedure and the diversion and transformation between the procedure and the procedure.
This article is divided into five parts. First of all, it clearly defines the disputes of bill rights. Secondly, through the analysis of the judicial status of the settlement of the bill rights in China and the investigation of the judicial remedy ways of other countries or regions, then lists the necessity and feasibility of adding the litigation procedure in our country. It is the basic thread of this article to construct our country's bill litigation procedure. Specifically, the main contents of this article are:
The first part is the definition of the bill rights dispute. This part mainly clarifies the scope of the bill dispute through combing the legal relationship of the bill, and then defines the bill rights dispute in the bill dispute, and deeply excavate the particularity of the bill rights dispute. This part is the legal basis of this article, and the bill litigation is the basis of this article. The study of litigation procedure is mainly based on the particularity of disputes about the rights of negotiable instruments.
The second part, the judicial status of the settlement of the bill rights disputes in our country. As mentioned above, the ordinary procedure and the supervision and promotion procedure are the two main ways to resolve the dispute of the bill rights in our country, but facing the plight of poor relief, this is the value of the study of the bill procedure and the starting point of the argument in this paper.
The third part, the investigation of the judicial remedy for the bill rights disputes in other countries or regions. This part, starting with the instrument law system, focuses on the introduction of the German and Japanese bill litigation system similar to the bill law system in China and similar litigation system in Germany and Japan. The bill litigation procedure which accords with the particularity of the bill rights dispute is set up quickly and quickly to resolve the dispute of the right of the ticket, which provides the valuable experience for the reform of the bill litigation system of our country.
The fourth part, the necessity and feasibility of adding the bill litigation procedure in China. Through careful analysis, we find that the rapid development of the bill market needs efficient and convenient bill litigation procedure, the transformation of simple and distributary litigation system and the trend of commercial trial independence also require the addition of bill litigation procedure. In addition, the bill rights are right. The particularity of the system and the bill litigation system in Germany and Japan provide feasibility for the establishment of the bill litigation procedure.
The fifth part, the construction of China's bill litigation procedure. This part of the construction of the procedure mainly from the existing procedures to divert and transform, the program itself efficient and convenient two ideas, for the scope of the application of the bill litigation procedure, the jurisdiction problem, the evidence method, the decision after the setting of the order, and so on, to realize the supervision procedure, bill The docking between litigation procedure and common litigation procedure aims to achieve the goal of diverting cases, procedures and cases, and enriching the rights and interests of the parties.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.287

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 任靜;;架構(gòu)我國的效益性票據(jù)訴訟制度[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年01期

2 趙萬一;;商法的獨立性與商事審判的獨立化[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2012年01期

3 葉永祿;票據(jù)訴訟解析[J];法學(xué)評論;2005年03期

4 葉永祿,李琴;關(guān)于票據(jù)糾紛訴訟的幾個問題[J];法學(xué);1998年07期

5 張帆;票據(jù)糾紛及訴訟[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1993年01期

6 傅郁林;;分界·分層·分流·分類——我國民事訴訟制度轉(zhuǎn)型的基本思路[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年01期

7 章武生;督促程序的改革與完善[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年02期

8 劉秉鋒，黃鶴;建議增設(shè)票據(jù)訴訟程序[J];政法論叢;1995年05期

9 胡晉芳;;改革開放30年來中國票據(jù)市場發(fā)展歷程回顧[J];中國貨幣市場;2008年12期

10 陳小英;論票據(jù)訴訟及其訴訟程序[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);1997年03期

本文編號：1898061