發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-11 15:26

  本文選題：車貸保證保險(xiǎn) + 保險(xiǎn)　； 參考：《中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：機(jī)動(dòng)車輛消費(fèi)貸款保證保險(xiǎn)(以下簡(jiǎn)稱車貸保證保險(xiǎn))于1997年正式進(jìn)入我國(guó)。當(dāng)時(shí)我國(guó)汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)正處于快速發(fā)展的起步階段,為了刺激個(gè)人汽車消費(fèi),促進(jìn)國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展,各大保險(xiǎn)公司在政府的倡導(dǎo)下大力開展車貸保證保險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù),并有效的刺激了個(gè)人購(gòu)車消費(fèi)和國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。但由于銀行和保險(xiǎn)公司在辦理業(yè)務(wù)中相互推諉怠于履行對(duì)借款人的審查義務(wù),導(dǎo)致頻繁出現(xiàn)借款人逾期還款的情況并且乘不斷蔓延之勢(shì)。根據(jù)中國(guó)人民銀行相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)顯示,汽車消費(fèi)貸款的呆壞賬已高達(dá)千億元人民幣,數(shù)額之巨大令人震驚。隨著車貸逾期的一路走高,銀行追繳車貸欠款的集團(tuán)訴訟也隨之爆發(fā)。由于車貸訴訟在當(dāng)時(shí)屬于新型訴訟,各地法院在審理車貸糾紛案件中,遇到了前所未有的爭(zhēng)議,并出現(xiàn)了同案不同判的情況,甚至出現(xiàn)同一法院的法官作出不同判決的情況。經(jīng)研究,主要有三個(gè)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)問題,即車貸保證保險(xiǎn)的性質(zhì)是保險(xiǎn)還是擔(dān)保、應(yīng)適用《保險(xiǎn)法》還是《擔(dān)保法》、保險(xiǎn)人如何行使代位追償權(quán)。這三個(gè)問題也引起了學(xué)術(shù)界的廣泛關(guān)注,并出現(xiàn)了百家爭(zhēng)鳴眾說紛紜的局面。 同時(shí)為了消除車貸訴訟亂象,探討車貸糾紛審理思路,全國(guó)各地法院都在討論規(guī)范車貸保證保險(xiǎn)糾紛案件的審理方案,并出臺(tái)了觀點(diǎn)各異的審理意見,形成了各省市各自為政的局面。最高人民法院為了統(tǒng)一審理意見,曾經(jīng)專門調(diào)研并出臺(tái)了《關(guān)于審理保險(xiǎn)糾紛案件若干問題的解釋(征求意見稿)》。該征求意見稿規(guī)定：“人民法院審理保證保險(xiǎn)合同糾紛確定當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利義務(wù)時(shí),適用保險(xiǎn)法；保險(xiǎn)法沒有規(guī)定的,適用擔(dān)保法”,問題似乎有所緩和。但是,此意見畢竟是征求意見稿,而且仍存在不明確的方面,不能完全解決司法實(shí)踐上的爭(zhēng)議。鑒于我國(guó)至今沒有統(tǒng)一有效的法律法規(guī)對(duì)車貸保證保險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行全面規(guī)范,筆者嘗試對(duì)車貸保證保險(xiǎn)司法實(shí)踐中產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議的三個(gè)焦點(diǎn)問題進(jìn)行分析和探討,提出自己淺薄的建議,希望對(duì)我國(guó)車貸保證保險(xiǎn)相關(guān)法律法規(guī)的健全完備有所幫助,不當(dāng)之處請(qǐng)老師給予批評(píng)指正。 第一部分,車貸保證保險(xiǎn)的法律性質(zhì)。車貸保證保險(xiǎn)的性質(zhì)是保證還是保險(xiǎn),在理論和實(shí)踐中存在較大爭(zhēng)議。筆者在介紹學(xué)者觀點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)上,堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為車貸保證保險(xiǎn)應(yīng)被界定為一種特殊的財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)制度。 第二部分,車貸保證保險(xiǎn)應(yīng)適用《保險(xiǎn)法》和,《合同法》。車貸保證保險(xiǎn)具有擔(dān)保和保險(xiǎn)的雙重屬性,在司法實(shí)踐中,適用《擔(dān)保法》還是《保險(xiǎn)法》成為車貸保證保險(xiǎn)糾紛的焦點(diǎn)問題。筆者在第一部分分析車貸保證保險(xiǎn)法律性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合司法實(shí)踐的實(shí)際情況,認(rèn)為車貸保證保險(xiǎn)糾紛應(yīng)該嚴(yán)格適用《保險(xiǎn)法》和《合同法》等相關(guān)民事法規(guī)。 第三部分,代位追償權(quán)是保險(xiǎn)人的自有權(quán)利。保險(xiǎn)人在履行保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任后其代位追償權(quán)應(yīng)承接銀行的權(quán)利,但是如何實(shí)現(xiàn)存在較多的問題,如傳統(tǒng)的代位追償權(quán)與車貸保證保險(xiǎn)中的代位追償權(quán)的不同、是否必須由被保險(xiǎn)人權(quán)益轉(zhuǎn)讓后保險(xiǎn)人才有權(quán)向債務(wù)人行使追償權(quán),這些問題法律規(guī)定并不明確。通過結(jié)合司法實(shí)踐和學(xué)者觀點(diǎn),筆者主張車貸保證保險(xiǎn)的代位追償權(quán)與傳統(tǒng)財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)代位追償權(quán)不同,代位追償權(quán)是保險(xiǎn)人的自有權(quán)利,有權(quán)向債務(wù)人直接追償而不需要被保險(xiǎn)人的權(quán)益轉(zhuǎn)讓,這樣既能夠?yàn)榧皶r(shí)挽回?fù)p失爭(zhēng)取時(shí)間,又可以節(jié)約司法成本。
[Abstract]:The motor vehicle consumer loan guarantee insurance (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle loan guarantee insurance) formally entered China in 1997. At that time, the automobile industry in China was in the initial stage of rapid development. In order to stimulate individual car consumption and promote the domestic economic development, the major insurance companies launched the vehicle loan guarantee insurance business vigorously under the initiative of the government, and were effective. It stimulates individual car consumption and domestic economic growth. But because banks and insurance companies are passing off their duty to review the borrowers' duties, they often lead to overdue borrowers' overdue payments and continue to spread. According to the data of the people's Bank of China, the car consumer loan is bad. The account has reached hundreds of billions of yuan, and the huge amount is shocking. As the car loan is overdue, the group litigation of the bank's arrears of the loan has also erupted. In the case, even the judges of the same court make different judgments. After studying, there are three main issues of dispute, that is, the nature of the insurance of vehicle loan guarantee is insurance or guarantee, and the insurance law or the guarantee law should be applied to the insurer how to exercise the right of subrogation. These three problems have also aroused extensive concern in the academic circle and are out of the question. There is a contending situation in a hundred schools of opinion.
At the same time, in order to eliminate the disorder of car loan litigation and discuss the train of thought of car loan dispute, the courts all over the country have discussed the trial plan of regulating the case of vehicle loan guarantee insurance disputes, and introduced different opinions on the trial, which formed the situation of each province and city. The draft stipulates that "when the people's court tries to determine the rights and obligations of the parties to the parties in a guarantee insurance contract, the people's court applies the insurance law; the insurance law does not stipulate and applies the guarantee law", the problem seems to be relieved. However, this opinion is after all. The author tries to analyze and discuss three issues of dispute in the judicial practice of vehicle loan guarantee insurance. Thin proposal, I hope that China's vehicle loan guarantee insurance related laws and regulations to improve the integrity of the help, teachers should be criticized for improper.
The first part is the legal nature of the insurance of vehicle loan guarantee. There is a great controversy in the theory and practice of the nature of the guarantee insurance. On the basis of the views of the scholars, the author insists that the insurance of vehicle loan guarantee should be defined as a special property insurance system.
The second part, vehicle loan guarantee insurance should apply "insurance law >" and "Contract Law >." vehicle loan guarantee insurance has dual attributes of guarantee and insurance. In judicial practice, the application of "Guarantee Law > Insurance Law" is the focus of the dispute of insurance of vehicle loan guarantee. The author is in the first part on the basis of analyzing the legal nature of the insurance of vehicle loan, and combining with the legal nature of the insurance of vehicle loan. According to the actual situation of judicial practice, it is considered that the relevant civil laws and regulations, such as the insurance law and the contract law, should be strictly applied in the insurance of vehicle loan guarantee insurance.
The third part, the right of subrogation recourse is the right of the insurer. The insurer should undertake the right of the bank after the insurer is carrying out the insurance liability, but how to realize many problems, such as the difference between the traditional subrogation right and the subrogation right in the insurance of the vehicle loan guarantee, whether it must be insured after the transfer of the rights and interests of the insured. Talent has the right to exercise the right of recourse to the debtor. The legal provisions of these issues are not clear. Through the combination of judicial practice and the viewpoint of scholars, the author claims that the subrogation right of the subrogation of the vehicle loan guarantee insurance is different from the traditional property insurance subrogation. The right of subrogation is the right of the insurer's own right, and the right of direct compensation to the debtor without being insured. The transfer of the rights and interests of the insured can not only save time but also save the cost of justice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284;D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 張英;履約保證保險(xiǎn)合同案件實(shí)務(wù)初探[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

2 呂偉昌;;汽車金融公司貸款風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問題探討[J];浙江金融;2010年11期

，

本文編號(hào)：2115668