本文選題：保理 + 債權(quán)讓與��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：保理作為新型債權(quán)讓與融資類型,其與傳統(tǒng)的債權(quán)讓與制度并不完全一致。從最初的催收賬款服務(wù)保理到現(xiàn)在的隱蔽性保理、有追索權(quán)保理,保理業(yè)務(wù)種類也在不斷創(chuàng)新、發(fā)展。然而,實(shí)務(wù)的創(chuàng)新性和法律的滯后性必然會(huì)導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中的漏洞百出,保理也不例外。我國(guó)法院對(duì)保理的性質(zhì)、保理的效力以及將來(lái)債權(quán)讓與等問(wèn)題的處理一般都僅能依據(jù)《民法通則》或《合同法》之規(guī)定,此類案件審判結(jié)果通常較為死板,并不能對(duì)保理行業(yè)的發(fā)展起到有效的促進(jìn)作用。因此,解決新型保理業(yè)務(wù)與法律滯后性之間的沖突就成了保理問(wèn)題研究的關(guān)鍵。本文主要通過(guò)對(duì)保理性質(zhì)和存在的問(wèn)題的分析,提出對(duì)保理債權(quán)讓與進(jìn)行登記的管理模式。文章第一部分,先從保理的概念出發(fā),分析兩類較為特殊的保理業(yè)務(wù)類型,進(jìn)而總結(jié)出保理的優(yōu)勢(shì)和法律性質(zhì),認(rèn)定保理屬于一種新型的債權(quán)讓與。第二部分,關(guān)于保理業(yè)務(wù)中將來(lái)債權(quán)讓與問(wèn)題,從比較法和保理司法審判實(shí)踐兩個(gè)角度,認(rèn)定現(xiàn)今的保理業(yè)務(wù)應(yīng)當(dāng)在制度層面適當(dāng)開(kāi)放將來(lái)債權(quán)讓與,即只要將來(lái)債權(quán)是有合理期待或"可鑒別"的,就應(yīng)當(dāng)可以作為保理業(yè)務(wù)的客體。第三部分,是本文的重點(diǎn),即保理債權(quán)讓與對(duì)債務(wù)人的效力以及對(duì)第三人的效力的分析。關(guān)于保理債權(quán)讓與對(duì)債務(wù)人的效力,讓與通知對(duì)抗原則更為合理,我國(guó)也采納了這種觀點(diǎn);而保理債權(quán)讓與對(duì)第三人的效力方面,主要通過(guò)對(duì)日本、美國(guó)等適用登記對(duì)抗制度的國(guó)家債權(quán)讓與制度的分析,得出登記對(duì)抗制度的優(yōu)勢(shì),為保理業(yè)務(wù)適用債權(quán)讓與登記制度的觀點(diǎn)提供實(shí)踐支撐。第四部分以天津試點(diǎn)區(qū)域?yàn)槔?介紹國(guó)內(nèi)適用保理債權(quán)讓與登記制度的實(shí)例,提出債權(quán)讓與登記制度在我國(guó)也是可行的。第五部分,通過(guò)分析前文內(nèi)容,總結(jié)出保理登記對(duì)抗制度的優(yōu)劣勢(shì),進(jìn)而為我國(guó)保理債權(quán)讓與登記制度建設(shè)提出符合我國(guó)國(guó)情的制度設(shè)計(jì),以解決我國(guó)保理業(yè)務(wù)中將來(lái)債權(quán)讓與問(wèn)題以及債權(quán)讓與對(duì)抗第三人效力難以確定的問(wèn)題�？傊�,保理作為新興的債權(quán)融資類型,仍處在發(fā)展、完善的階段,只有為其設(shè)立健全、合理的登記機(jī)制,才能最大程度發(fā)揮其效能,保障保理行業(yè)的健康運(yùn)營(yíng)。
[Abstract]:Factoring, as a new type of creditor's rights transfer financing, is not completely consistent with the traditional creditor's rights transfer system. From the initial collection of account service factoring to the current hidden factoring, there is recourse factoring, factoring business types are constantly innovation and development. However, the innovation of practice and the lag of law will inevitably lead to defects in judicial practice, factoring is no exception. The nature of factoring, the validity of factoring and the assignment of creditor's rights in the future can only be dealt with according to the provisions of General principles of Civil Law or contract Law, and the trial results of such cases are usually rather rigid. Can not play an effective role in promoting the development of factoring industry. Therefore, resolving the conflict between new factoring business and legal lag becomes the key of factoring research. Based on the analysis of the nature and problems of factoring, this paper puts forward the management mode of registration of the assignment of factoring creditor's rights. In the first part of the article, the author analyzes two special types of factoring business from the concept of factoring, then summarizes the advantages and legal nature of factoring, and concludes that factoring belongs to a new type of assignment of creditor's rights. The second part, on the issue of future assignment of creditor's rights in factoring business, from the perspective of comparative law and judicial trial practice of factoring, it concludes that today's factoring business should properly open up the assignment of future creditor's rights at the system level. That is, as long as the creditor's rights in the future are reasonably expected or identifiable, they should be regarded as the object of factoring business. The third part is the emphasis of this paper, namely, the effect of factoring creditor's right to debtor and the third party. With regard to the validity of the assignment of factoring creditor's rights to the debtor, the principle of adversarial notice of assignment is more reasonable, and our country has adopted this view, while the effect of the transfer of factoring claims on third parties is mainly through Japan. Based on the analysis of the national creditor's rights transfer system applicable to the registration confrontation system in the United States, the advantages of the registration confrontation system are obtained, which provide practical support for the viewpoint of applying the creditor's rights assignment and registration system to the factoring business. The fourth part takes Tianjin pilot area as an example, introduces the domestic application of factoring creditor's rights transfer registration system, and points out that the creditor's rights transfer registration system is also feasible in our country. The fifth part, through the analysis of the previous contents, summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of factoring registration confrontation system, and then puts forward the system design in accordance with the national conditions for the construction of factoring creditor's rights transfer and registration system. In order to solve the problem of future assignment of creditor's rights in factoring business in our country and the problem that the validity of assignment of creditor's rights against third parties is difficult to determine. In short, factoring, as a new type of creditor's rights financing, is still in the stage of development and perfection. Only by establishing a sound and reasonable registration mechanism for factoring, can the efficiency of factoring be maximized and the healthy operation of factoring industry be guaranteed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蘇兆勇;何惠瑩;;論債權(quán)讓與的生效[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)理人;2006年15期

2 張良;;完善我國(guó)債權(quán)讓與制度的思考[J];中州學(xué)刊;2006年05期

3 肖婉珍;;對(duì)債權(quán)讓與制度若干問(wèn)題的探討[J];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(綜合版);2007年04期

4 孫茜;;將來(lái)債權(quán)讓與可行性分析[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年23期

5 黃小育;;我國(guó)債權(quán)讓與制度的完善[J];行政與法;2009年12期

6 胡雨春;曹宇;;論債權(quán)讓與通知的效力——兼對(duì)債權(quán)讓與通知傳統(tǒng)理論的反思[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年18期

7 李艷斐;;債權(quán)讓與通知若干法律問(wèn)題之我見(jiàn)[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年26期

8 裴麗萍;論債權(quán)讓與的若干基本問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1995年06期

9 夏恒信,盧俊山,馮繼華;論債權(quán)讓與若干問(wèn)題[J];山東審判;1998年05期

10 汪傳才;論債權(quán)讓與的通知[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 李宇;;債權(quán)讓與和債權(quán)質(zhì)押制度的統(tǒng)一[A];2014年第五屆全國(guó)民商法學(xué)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇論文摘要集[C];2014年

2 申建平;;債權(quán)讓與制度之歷史演進(jìn)[A];全國(guó)外國(guó)法制史研究會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)叢書(shū)——20世紀(jì)外國(guó)刑事法律的理論與實(shí)踐[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前7條

1 姜春玲;債權(quán)讓與各方當(dāng)事人利益平衡之我見(jiàn)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

2 林勁標(biāo)邋凌蔚 游春亮;出庭也是債權(quán)讓與通知方式[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

3 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)民商經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)院 趙廉慧;債權(quán)讓與禁止之約定的效力[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

4 錢利芳;債權(quán)讓與了 受讓人應(yīng)該還債[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2006年

5 案例編寫人 重慶市巫山縣人民法院 蔣家富;普通提貨單轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律屬性系債權(quán)讓與[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

6 朱大倫;債權(quán)讓與應(yīng)當(dāng)由讓與人通知債務(wù)人[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

7 馬串蓮;債務(wù)人能否自愿向債權(quán)受讓人清償債務(wù)[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 申建平;債權(quán)讓與制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2006年

2 楊驥;論保理業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)傳統(tǒng)債權(quán)讓與理論的沖擊和變革[D];湖南大學(xué);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 朱浩杰;論債權(quán)讓與通知的效力[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

2 呂洪成;債權(quán)讓與制度研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2008年

3 吳鑫磊;債權(quán)讓與之法律結(jié)構(gòu)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

4 陳坤;論債權(quán)讓與制度中的通知[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

5 余崇順;債權(quán)讓與制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

6 曾海峰;債權(quán)讓與制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2011年

7 孫杰;“熟人社會(huì)”背景下債權(quán)讓與中的主張力減弱現(xiàn)象觀察[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

8 鄭遠(yuǎn)園;實(shí)務(wù)中的債權(quán)讓與制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

9 夏斌;債權(quán)讓與公示問(wèn)題研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2014年

10 丁潔心;債權(quán)雙重讓與之法效果研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1865310