論對待給付訴訟
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-31 08:17
【摘要】：民事訴訟是民事實體法和民事訴訟法綜合作用的“場”,這一觀念已得到多數(shù)民事訴訟法學者的認同,二者存在著相互依存和相輔相成的一面。同時履行抗辯權是合同法上的概念,基于給付與對待給付之牽連性,它一般存在于雙務契約。由同時履行抗辯權引起了對待給付訴訟,而對待給付訴訟則是給付訴訟的一種特別形態(tài)�！吨腥A人民共和國合同法》(以下簡稱《合同法》)第66條對于同時履行抗辯權作出了規(guī)定,但是《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》(以下簡稱《民事訴訟法》)及其司法解釋對此卻沒有明確相應的規(guī)定。這一現(xiàn)狀造成的問題是實體法與訴訟法的脫節(jié),它使實體法的規(guī)定過度依賴于法官的自由裁量權,從而缺少法律規(guī)制。在這方面,德國、日本和我國臺灣地區(qū)的相關規(guī)定則比較詳細,包括在學理上的探討。在實體法理論領域,我國大陸學者對于同時履行抗辯權的研究并不缺乏,缺乏的是訴訟法理論領域關于對待給付訴訟這一特別給付訴訟形態(tài)的深入研究。這一缺陷直接導致實踐中在訴訟過程中對于同時履行抗辯權的應用沒有達到應有的效果,而在訴訟階段和執(zhí)行階段對債權人和債務人利益保護也并不平衡。同時由于訴訟法沒有將足夠的司法應用方面的情況信息反饋給實體法,也影響了實體法的進一步發(fā)展。這主要是源于對待給付訴訟本身所具有的獨特性,對一般給付之訴和民事訴訟法理的一些看似“背離”,使得它容易給人造成不符合作為大陸法系民事訴訟程序與制度基礎的辯論主義法理要求的印象,且由于存在通過其他途徑,如反訴或另訴,也使得它容易被質(zhì)疑有無存在的必要。但是通過深入研究對待給付訴訟,會發(fā)現(xiàn)它不僅沒有背離辯論主義,而且具有其他解決途徑所沒有的優(yōu)越之處,包括對于訴訟經(jīng)濟原則和糾紛的一次性解決理念的契合。本文共分為三個部分,第一章主要介紹對待給付訴訟的法理基礎,分別從對待給付訴訟的相關概念界定、適用范圍和正當化三個角度進行分析。由于學界在對待給付訴訟的應用上存在一些質(zhì)疑,該章著重從反駁質(zhì)疑和正面論證兩個方面進行論述。第二章主要針對對待給付訴訟的程序問題進行分析,包括對待給付訴訟的性質(zhì)與依據(jù)、同時履行抗辯權的效力、法官職權的體現(xiàn)和判決主文結構及上訴問題等。該章著重解決對待給付訴訟已經(jīng)遇到和可能出現(xiàn)的問題,從理論結合實踐的角度進行論述。第三章主要是論述我國的具體應用,基于貫通實體法與訴訟法,促進二者互動的觀點,從我國合同法的理論研究現(xiàn)狀出發(fā),強調(diào)訴訟法的制度和程序改進,并結合實踐中已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)的典型案例,指出具體的司法應用途徑�？傮w上來說,筆者認為,實體法與訴訟法之互動,有利于二者的共同發(fā)展,在此基礎上,對待給付訴訟的司法應用具有很多益處,符合司法改革的潮流所向。
[Abstract]:Civil action is the "field" of the comprehensive function of civil substantive law and civil procedural law. This concept has been accepted by most civil procedural law scholars, and they are interdependent and complementary. At the same time, the right of defense of performance is a concept in contract law. The right to defend at the same time gives rise to a lawsuit for the payment of benefits, The treatment of compensation litigation is a special form of compensation litigation. Article 66 of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "contract Law") provides for the right of defense to be performed at the same time. However, the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil procedure Law") and its judicial interpretation have not clearly stipulated this. The problem caused by this situation is the disconnection between the substantive law and the procedural law, which makes the provisions of the substantive law too dependent on the discretion of the judge, thus lacking of legal regulation. In this respect, the relevant regulations of Germany, Japan and Taiwan are more detailed, including theoretical discussion. In the field of substantive law, there is no lack of research on concurrent performance of the right of defense, what is lacking in the field of procedural law is the in-depth study on the litigation form of special payment in the field of procedural law. This defect directly leads to the failure of the application of concurrent performance of the right of defense in practice, and the imbalance of the protection of the interests of creditors and debtors in the stages of litigation and execution. At the same time, the law of procedure does not feedback enough information of judicial application to substantive law, which also affects the further development of substantive law. This is mainly due to the unique nature of the treatment of the procedure for the payment of benefits, which seems to deviate from the general litigation of payment and the civil procedure law. Makes it easy to give the impression that it does not meet the requirements of the argumentalist jurisprudence that underlies civil proceedings and systems in the civil law system, and because of its existence, through other means, such as counterclaims or separate actions, It also makes it easy to question the necessity of existence. However, through in-depth study of the treatment of payment litigation, it will be found that it not only does not deviate from the doctrine of debate, but also has the advantages that other solutions do not have, including the agreement between the economic principle of litigation and the concept of one-off settlement of disputes. This paper is divided into three parts. The first chapter mainly introduces the legal basis of the treatment of payment litigation, respectively from the perspective of the definition of related concepts, scope of application and legitimacy. Because there are some doubts in the application of payment litigation, this chapter focuses on two aspects: refutation challenge and positive argument. The second chapter mainly focuses on the procedural issues in the treatment of payment proceedings, including the nature and basis of the treatment of payment proceedings, the effectiveness of the right of defense, the embodiment of the judge's functions and powers, the structure of the judgment main document and the appeal issues, and so on. This chapter focuses on solving the problems that have been encountered and may appear in the treatment of payment litigation, and discusses from the angle of theory and practice. The third chapter mainly discusses the concrete application of our country, based on the point of view of linking substantive law and procedural law, promoting the interaction between them, starting from the present situation of theoretical research of contract law of our country, emphasizing the system and procedure improvement of procedural law. Combined with the typical cases that have already appeared in practice, the author points out the specific ways of judicial application. On the whole, the author believes that the interaction between substantive law and procedural law is conducive to the common development of both. On this basis, the judicial application of payment litigation has many benefits, which is in line with the trend of judicial reform.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.6
本文編號：2301491
[Abstract]:Civil action is the "field" of the comprehensive function of civil substantive law and civil procedural law. This concept has been accepted by most civil procedural law scholars, and they are interdependent and complementary. At the same time, the right of defense of performance is a concept in contract law. The right to defend at the same time gives rise to a lawsuit for the payment of benefits, The treatment of compensation litigation is a special form of compensation litigation. Article 66 of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "contract Law") provides for the right of defense to be performed at the same time. However, the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil procedure Law") and its judicial interpretation have not clearly stipulated this. The problem caused by this situation is the disconnection between the substantive law and the procedural law, which makes the provisions of the substantive law too dependent on the discretion of the judge, thus lacking of legal regulation. In this respect, the relevant regulations of Germany, Japan and Taiwan are more detailed, including theoretical discussion. In the field of substantive law, there is no lack of research on concurrent performance of the right of defense, what is lacking in the field of procedural law is the in-depth study on the litigation form of special payment in the field of procedural law. This defect directly leads to the failure of the application of concurrent performance of the right of defense in practice, and the imbalance of the protection of the interests of creditors and debtors in the stages of litigation and execution. At the same time, the law of procedure does not feedback enough information of judicial application to substantive law, which also affects the further development of substantive law. This is mainly due to the unique nature of the treatment of the procedure for the payment of benefits, which seems to deviate from the general litigation of payment and the civil procedure law. Makes it easy to give the impression that it does not meet the requirements of the argumentalist jurisprudence that underlies civil proceedings and systems in the civil law system, and because of its existence, through other means, such as counterclaims or separate actions, It also makes it easy to question the necessity of existence. However, through in-depth study of the treatment of payment litigation, it will be found that it not only does not deviate from the doctrine of debate, but also has the advantages that other solutions do not have, including the agreement between the economic principle of litigation and the concept of one-off settlement of disputes. This paper is divided into three parts. The first chapter mainly introduces the legal basis of the treatment of payment litigation, respectively from the perspective of the definition of related concepts, scope of application and legitimacy. Because there are some doubts in the application of payment litigation, this chapter focuses on two aspects: refutation challenge and positive argument. The second chapter mainly focuses on the procedural issues in the treatment of payment proceedings, including the nature and basis of the treatment of payment proceedings, the effectiveness of the right of defense, the embodiment of the judge's functions and powers, the structure of the judgment main document and the appeal issues, and so on. This chapter focuses on solving the problems that have been encountered and may appear in the treatment of payment litigation, and discusses from the angle of theory and practice. The third chapter mainly discusses the concrete application of our country, based on the point of view of linking substantive law and procedural law, promoting the interaction between them, starting from the present situation of theoretical research of contract law of our country, emphasizing the system and procedure improvement of procedural law. Combined with the typical cases that have already appeared in practice, the author points out the specific ways of judicial application. On the whole, the author believes that the interaction between substantive law and procedural law is conducive to the common development of both. On this basis, the judicial application of payment litigation has many benefits, which is in line with the trend of judicial reform.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.6
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 蔣方凱,蔣小平;論同時履行抗辯權[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2001年S1期
2 羅文正;論同時履行抗辯權[J];衡陽師范學院學報(社會科學);2001年04期
3 馬強;試論同時履行抗辯權[J];法學論壇;2001年02期
4 楊長海;;論同時履行抗辯權[J];研究生法學;2001年02期
5 剛韌,王冰;論同時履行抗辯權[J];鞍山鋼鐵學院學報;2002年05期
6 雷裕春;論同時履行抗辯權之適用[J];江西社會科學;2003年06期
7 尹光;同時履行抗辯權及其存在的問題探析[J];高等函授學報(哲學社會科學版);2003年03期
8 彭爽;同時履行抗辯權在適用中的幾個問題[J];湖南經(jīng)濟管理干部學院學報;2003年04期
9 楊宗華 ,張獻清;行使同時履行抗辯權不構成違約[J];中國房地信息;2004年01期
10 劉力;;對合同同時履行抗辯權的限制[J];改革與開放;2006年08期
相關重要報紙文章 前10條
1 朱俊峰 孫青;被告可否行使同時履行抗辯權[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2005年
2 羊煥發(fā);正確運用同時履行抗辯權和合同解釋規(guī)則[N];人民法院報;2002年
3 陸金保 孔維寅;留置權與同時履行抗辯權之別[N];人民法院報;2002年
4 黨同皓 方 莉;同時履行抗辯權與留置權之辨析[N];人民法院報;2004年
5 邱慶明;被告同時履行抗辯權的條件不成立[N];經(jīng)理日報;2006年
6 吳敦;同時履行抗辯權之適用[N];江蘇法制報;2006年
7 周科 馮衛(wèi)紅;留置權和同時履行抗辯權的區(qū)別[N];江蘇法制報;2006年
8 劉力;同時履行抗辯權的適用[N];人民法院報;2005年
9 陳軍;同時履行抗辯權在執(zhí)行程序中的適用[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2009年
10 李利平;對同時履行抗辯權的理解[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2011年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 況慧美;同時履行抗辯權研究[D];南昌大學;2008年
2 彭宇;同時履行抗辯權研究[D];山東大學;2010年
3 嚴剛;同時履行抗辯權與雙方違約研究[D];四川大學;2003年
4 任愛軍;論同時履行抗辯權的擴張適用[D];中國政法大學;2012年
5 李雄湊;論同時履行抗辯權[D];西南政法大學;2013年
6 李小丫;同時履行抗辯權效力研究[D];西南政法大學;2014年
7 岳志強;論同時履行抗辯權[D];吉林大學;2007年
8 楊楠;同時履行抗辯規(guī)則適用研究[D];吉林大學;2013年
9 羅磊;同時履行抗辯權適用問題研究[D];中國社會科學院研究生院;2014年
10 陳輝;論對待給付訴訟[D];西南政法大學;2015年
，本文編號：2301491
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2301491.html
