本文關(guān)鍵詞： 讓與擔(dān)保 立法路徑 現(xiàn)代擔(dān)保體系　出處：《西北大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自《物權(quán)法》編纂時(shí),學(xué)界就開始呼吁對(duì)讓與擔(dān)保進(jìn)行立法,直到2015年最高院頒布的《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理民間借貸案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《民間借貸司法解釋》)之第二十四條,我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保的立法才邁出了關(guān)鍵的第一步,然而該條文規(guī)定的范圍過于狹窄,還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)無法適應(yīng)當(dāng)下社會(huì)的需求,故筆者試圖對(duì)比分析不同的讓與擔(dān)保立法路徑,從而找出適合我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保發(fā)展的立法路徑。本文先對(duì)讓與擔(dān)保的法律地位與性質(zhì)進(jìn)行了論證,并對(duì)比分析了國(guó)外的立法現(xiàn)狀與研究成果,從而得出讓與擔(dān)保立法的路徑選擇應(yīng)當(dāng)從兩個(gè)層面入手。第一,讓與擔(dān)保的法律地位決定了讓與擔(dān)保在我國(guó)未來是能夠繁榮發(fā)展還是逐漸被取代,習(xí)慣法與成文法兩個(gè)路徑的選擇對(duì)讓與擔(dān)保的法律地位影響極大,故應(yīng)對(duì)比分析這兩種路徑的優(yōu)劣,為讓與擔(dān)保的立法路徑合適的選擇。第二,讓與擔(dān)保的性質(zhì)與立法路徑關(guān)系緊密,物權(quán)法路徑下讓與擔(dān)保的性質(zhì)應(yīng)符合“擔(dān)保權(quán)構(gòu)成說”,合同法路徑下讓與擔(dān)保的性質(zhì)應(yīng)符合“所有權(quán)構(gòu)成說”,故為了明確讓與擔(dān)保的性質(zhì),我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保應(yīng)當(dāng)在物權(quán)法與合同法路徑之間選擇合適的立法路徑。因此筆者依次從這兩個(gè)層面對(duì)讓與擔(dān)保的立法路徑進(jìn)行分析與選擇。首先,本文通過比較習(xí)慣法與成文法路徑之優(yōu)劣,指出讓與擔(dān)保習(xí)慣法路徑的劣勢(shì)在于不能為司法審判、經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)提供明確的法律依據(jù),會(huì)使讓與擔(dān)保一直處于無法可依的狀態(tài)。而成文法路徑不僅可以促進(jìn)新型融資途徑的發(fā)展,還可以彌補(bǔ)我國(guó)擔(dān)保體系存在的不足,故得出我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保過去的習(xí)慣法路徑已經(jīng)無法滿足當(dāng)下經(jīng)濟(jì)生活的需求,成文立法勢(shì)在必行。其次,若對(duì)讓與擔(dān)保進(jìn)行成文立法,就應(yīng)當(dāng)尋找適合讓與擔(dān)保的部門法路徑,物權(quán)法與合同法的立法路徑最適合我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保,本文通過對(duì)比兩個(gè)路徑的優(yōu)劣,得出讓與擔(dān)保若采用物權(quán)法路徑,會(huì)與物權(quán)法定原則、物權(quán)公示原則、禁止流質(zhì)原則產(chǎn)生無法化解的矛盾,而合同法立法路徑不僅能夠化解物權(quán)法下存在的立法困境,還符合非典型擔(dān)保立法的習(xí)慣,故我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保不僅應(yīng)當(dāng)摒棄習(xí)慣法路徑,還應(yīng)當(dāng)在物權(quán)法與合同法的路徑選擇中,選擇合同法作為我國(guó)讓與擔(dān)保的立法路徑。
[Abstract]:Since the compilation of the property Law, academics have called for legislation on assignment guarantees. Until 2015, the Supreme people's Court promulgated 24th articles of the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on certain legal issues applicable to the trial of private lending cases (hereinafter referred to as "the Judicial interpretation of Folk loans"), However, the scope of this provision is too narrow to meet the needs of the present society, so the author tries to compare and analyze the different legislative paths of assignment guarantee. In order to find out the legislative path suitable for the development of the transferable guarantee in China, this paper first demonstrates the legal status and nature of the transferable guarantee, and compares and analyzes the current legislative situation and the research results of foreign countries. It is concluded that the path choice of the legislation of transferable security should start from two aspects. First, the legal status of the transferable guarantee determines whether the transferable guarantee can flourish or be replaced gradually in the future of our country. The choice of two paths of customary law and statutory law has a great influence on the legal status of assignment security. Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of these two paths should be compared and analyzed. The nature of the assignment guarantee is closely related to the legislative path, The nature of the assignment security under the path of property law should conform to the "constitution of security right", and the nature of the assignment security under the path of contract law should conform to the "ownership constitution theory", so in order to clarify the nature of the assignment security, Therefore, the author analyzes and chooses the legislative path of assignment guarantee from these two aspects. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of customary law and statutory law, this paper points out that the disadvantage of customary law of transferring security is that it cannot provide clear legal basis for judicial judgment and economic activity. The path of statutory law can not only promote the development of new financing channels, but also make up for the shortcomings of the guarantee system in our country. It is concluded that the customary law path in the past can no longer meet the needs of current economic life, and it is imperative to legislate on it. Secondly, if we legislate on the guarantee of assignment, we should look for a suitable path of department law for the guarantee of assignment. The legislative path of real right law and contract law is the most suitable for the assignment guarantee in our country. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two paths, this paper draws a conclusion that if the assignment guarantee adopts the property law path, it will establish the principle of property law and the principle of publicizing real right. The principle of prohibiting fluid quality produces irresolvable contradictions, and the legislative path of contract law can not only resolve the legislative dilemma existing under the property law, but also accord with the habit of atypical guarantee legislation, so our country should not only abandon the customary law path. In addition, we should choose contract law as the legislative path of assignment guarantee in the path choice of real right law and contract law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張偉;;買賣合同擔(dān)保民間借貸合同的解釋論——以法釋〔2015〕18號(hào)第24條為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年02期

2 董學(xué)立;;也論“新類型擔(dān)保的法律定位”——與陳本寒教授商榷[J];法治研究;2015年04期

3 張志民;;讓與擔(dān)保問題研究[J];學(xué)理論;2015年19期

4 高圣平;;民法典中擔(dān)保物權(quán)的體系重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年06期

5 蔡雯嫻;;債權(quán)質(zhì)押與債權(quán)讓與擔(dān)保的中日比較考察——以指名債權(quán)為中心[J];法制與社會(huì);2015年13期

6 宋欣儒;;論非典型擔(dān)�，F(xiàn)實(shí)困境之突破[J];呂梁學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年02期

7 陳群峰;左穎穎;;論讓與擔(dān)保制度的建立[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2015年05期

8 夏靜;;物權(quán)法定原則的緩和趨勢(shì)研究——以非典型擔(dān)保物權(quán)為視角[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2015年04期

9 楊祥;;讓與擔(dān)保合法化之信托路徑[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年05期

10 王闖;;關(guān)于讓與擔(dān)保的司法態(tài)度及實(shí)務(wù)問題之解決[J];人民司法;2014年16期

，

本文編號(hào)：1547995