本文關鍵詞： 以物抵債 以物抵債調解協(xié)議 法律效力 代物清償　出處：《西南政法大學》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：以物抵債調解協(xié)議是指，在民商事糾紛案件審理過程中，雙方當事人經調解自愿達成以他種給付替代原定給付的協(xié)議。目前我國法律并未明確規(guī)定以物抵債調解協(xié)議的法律效力，學理界對以物抵債調解協(xié)議法律效力的研究亦甚少。因此，在司法實踐中存在著以物抵債調解協(xié)議合法與否之爭。以物抵債調解協(xié)議法律效力認定問題給司法實踐帶來了一定的困擾。本文在此基礎上圍繞以物抵債調解協(xié)議法律效力問題進行全面的剖析。 本文分為六部分： 第一部分：以兩個案例的對比研究引出對本文論題的思考：以物抵債調解協(xié)議是否具有法律效力？這兩個案例充分展現(xiàn)了對于以物抵債調解協(xié)議法律效力問題在司法實踐中存在著兩種截然不同的觀點。 第二部分：闡述以物抵債、以物抵債調解協(xié)議的含義，結合實踐中的以物抵債現(xiàn)象，，將以物抵債分為代物清償與債的更改兩種。同時，通過對以物抵債調解協(xié)議與流質契約、讓與擔保的比較以及對以物抵債調解協(xié)議的性質與構成要件的分析，厘清概念，為論述以物抵債調解協(xié)議的法律效力作鋪墊。 第三部分：分析在以物抵債調解協(xié)議合法與否問題上我國現(xiàn)今學理與實務中存在的兩種不同觀點及其理由。從否定以物抵債調解協(xié)議法律效力的理由來看，主要是關于承認以物抵債調解協(xié)議的法律效力可能會產生一定的弊端。然而，這些弊端不是必然會產生的，而且這些弊端是可以通過一定的措施予以消除的，我們不能因其可能產生弊端而對其全盤否定。 第四部分：分別從以物抵債調解協(xié)議自身定性角度、立法及案例角度、司法現(xiàn)狀角度、當事人權利角度對以物抵債調解協(xié)議的法律效力進行分析，繼而得出結論：只要以物抵債調解協(xié)議沒有違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強制性規(guī)定，沒有侵害國家及集體利益、社會公共利益，沒有侵害案外人利益，沒有違背當事人的真實意思，就應當承認其法律效力。 第五部分：提出對消除以物抵債調解協(xié)議消極影響的構思：提醒雙方當事人充分考量標的物價值；對雙方當事人達成的以物抵債調解協(xié)議進行嚴格審查；規(guī)范以物抵債調解協(xié)議的實現(xiàn)方式；暢通事后救濟途徑，避免消極影響進一步擴大。 第六部分：建議立法對以物抵債予以明確規(guī)定，可將以物抵債作為合同權利義務終止的情形之一明確規(guī)定于我國《合同法》第91條中，同時通過最高人民法院的司法解釋對以物抵債進行詳細的規(guī)定，統(tǒng)一以物抵債的含義，明確其構成要件及法律效力的認定標準，細化以物抵債的具體操作規(guī)程。繼而為以物抵債調解協(xié)議的法律效力認定提供法律依據及規(guī)范指引。
[Abstract]:An agreement to settle debts in rem means that, in the course of adjudicating civil and commercial disputes, After mediation, the parties voluntarily reached an agreement to replace the original payment with another kind of payment. At present, the law of our country does not clearly specify the legal effect of the agreement to settle debts in rem. There is also little research on the legal effect of debt-for-rem mediation agreements in the academic community. In the judicial practice, there is a dispute about whether the mediation agreement is legal or not. The legal validity of the agreement is troubled to the judicial practice. On this basis, this article revolves around the mediation association of debt in rem. A comprehensive analysis of the legal effect. This paper is divided into six parts:. The first part: with two cases of comparative study leads to the thinking of the topic of this paper: whether the debt in rem mediation agreement has legal effect? These two cases fully show that there are two different views on the legal effect of debt mediation agreement in rem. The second part: expound the meaning of the mediation agreement between recompense and debt in rem, and combine the phenomenon of recompense in practice, divide the debt in rem into two kinds: recompense and modification. At the same time, through the mediation agreement and liquid contract, The comparison of the transfer guarantee and the analysis of the nature and the constitutive elements of the agreement on debt in rem should clarify the concept and pave the way for the discussion of the legal effect of the mediation agreement in rem. The third part analyzes two different viewpoints and their reasons in the theory and practice of the mediation agreement in rem, which is based on the reason of negating the legal effect of the mediation agreement in rem. It is mainly about the recognition that the legal effect of an agreement on debt-for-rem mediation may have certain drawbacks. However, these shortcomings are not inevitable, and they can be eliminated by certain measures. We cannot deny it all because of its possible drawbacks. Part 4th: from the qualitative angle of the mediation agreement in rem, the angle of legislation and case, the angle of judicial status, the angle of the parties' rights, the analysis of the legal effect of the mediation agreement in rem. Then the conclusion is drawn: as long as the mediation agreement in rem does not violate the compulsory provisions of the law and administrative regulations, it does not infringe upon the national and collective interests, the public interest, the interests of outsiders in the case, and does not violate the true intention of the parties. Its legal effect should be recognized. Part 5th: put forward the idea of eliminating the negative effect of the debt in rem mediation agreement: remind the parties to consider the value of the subject matter fully; Standardize the realization of debt-for-rem mediation agreement, unblock the way of ex post relief, and avoid further expansion of negative influence. Part 6th: it is suggested that the legislation should explicitly provide for the payment of debts in rem, and that one of the circumstances in which the contractual rights and obligations are terminated can be clearly stipulated in Article 91 of the contract Law of China. At the same time, through the judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court, it makes detailed provisions on redeem-for-debt, unifies the meaning of redeem-for-debt, clarifies its constituent elements and the standard of determining its legal effect. Then it provides the legal basis and normative guidance for the legal validity determination of the debt in rem mediation agreement.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 原琳;;論讓與擔保制度的歷史發(fā)展與制度功能[J];當代經濟;2009年11期

2 崔建遠;;代物清償與保證的聯(lián)立分析[J];東方法學;2011年05期

3 翟云嶺;于靖文;;代物清償理論剖析[J];大連海事大學學報(社會科學版);2012年01期

4 崔軍;;代物清償?shù)幕疽?guī)則及實務應用[J];法律適用;2006年07期

5 石水根;曹亞峰;胡志清;;關于讓與擔保在我國物權法中地位的思考[J];法律適用;2006年09期

6 劉長虹;;論流質契約的法律價值[J];法制與經濟(中旬刊);2009年08期

7 江敏;;淺論意思自治的理論基礎[J];法制與經濟(中旬刊);2011年08期

8 徐觀瑞;;論意思自治原則在民法中的適用與限制[J];法制與社會;2007年03期

9 劉羅波;;論民事執(zhí)行中當事人自愿以物抵債對抵債標的物強制評估的必要性[J];法制與社會;2008年06期

10 劉士新;;為流質契約辯護[J];法制與社會;2009年19期

本文編號：1542983