本文選題：債權(quán)讓與 + 通知�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 債權(quán)讓與是現(xiàn)代民商法的一項(xiàng)基本制度,其標(biāo)的既可能是指名債權(quán),也可能是指示債權(quán)或無(wú)記名債權(quán)。本文以指名債權(quán)——普通民法債權(quán)——的全部讓與作為研究對(duì)象,以邏輯分析為主軸,以社會(huì)學(xué)分析、文義分析等法律解釋方法為輔助,系統(tǒng)地論證了通知作為普通民法債權(quán)生效要件的必然、對(duì)抗要件的可行,以及通知在讓與人、受讓人、債務(wù)人、第三人等諸關(guān)系中作為保護(hù)債務(wù)人利益、平衡第三人利益的作用,并最終建構(gòu)起“形式移轉(zhuǎn)債權(quán)”理論。 全文由引言、正文和結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分組成。引言交待了選題的意義、研究的范圍以及研究的方法,結(jié)語(yǔ)對(duì)全文進(jìn)行了總結(jié),并對(duì)權(quán)利變動(dòng)模式的統(tǒng)一提出了構(gòu)想。正文共分三章。 第一章主要論述債權(quán)讓與的生效問(wèn)題。在對(duì)三種典型的“物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式”和“債權(quán)變動(dòng)模式”進(jìn)行考察和比較的過(guò)程中,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)各國(guó)在債權(quán)讓與問(wèn)題上由于對(duì)債權(quán)讓與合同和債權(quán)讓與不加區(qū)分、對(duì)通知的公信力和促進(jìn)債權(quán)流通的信心不足等原因都拋棄了債權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)的形式要求,轉(zhuǎn)而采用“合意移轉(zhuǎn)債權(quán)”模式。但“合意移轉(zhuǎn)債權(quán)”模式卻因不符債的本質(zhì)、有違法律邏輯和社會(huì)情理而先天不足。事實(shí)上,判斷權(quán)利是否移轉(zhuǎn)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)是何種法律事實(shí)發(fā)生后受讓人能夠支配權(quán)利,或者說(shuō)受讓人從此享有權(quán)利。在債權(quán)讓與制度中,這種法律事實(shí)無(wú)疑是通知,而通知在性質(zhì)上則是準(zhǔn)法律行為,應(yīng)準(zhǔn)用意思表示的規(guī)定。 第二章主要論述通知對(duì)債務(wù)人利益保護(hù)問(wèn)題。通過(guò)對(duì)自由主義和通知主義兩種立法例進(jìn)行考察和分析,筆者評(píng)判了以“知悉”作為債權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)實(shí)際生效要件立法例的弊端,論證了以通知作為債權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)生效要件對(duì)債務(wù)人利益保護(hù)的必然性。在此基礎(chǔ)上,筆者認(rèn)為,為保護(hù)債務(wù)人的利益,應(yīng)嚴(yán)格適用公告通知、有條件的適用訴訟告知；無(wú)論讓與人還是受讓人為錯(cuò)誤通知,都應(yīng)發(fā)生表見(jiàn)讓與的效力,而不論債務(wù)人善意、惡意與否。 第三章主要論述通知對(duì)第三人利益平衡問(wèn)題。因債權(quán)讓與合同生效并不等于債權(quán)讓與生效,故在債權(quán)讓與生效之前,債權(quán)有被再次出讓的可能性,由此產(chǎn)生了債權(quán)多重讓與中的優(yōu)先權(quán)問(wèn)題。筆者在考察分析了債權(quán)多重讓與中的時(shí)間優(yōu)先規(guī)則、通知優(yōu)先規(guī)則和登記優(yōu)先規(guī)則之后,認(rèn)為在對(duì)第三人利益的平衡問(wèn)題上,登記優(yōu)先規(guī)則最具優(yōu)勢(shì),通知優(yōu)先規(guī)則次之,時(shí)間優(yōu)先規(guī)則最次。但在普通民法債權(quán)讓與上,登記優(yōu)先規(guī)則在現(xiàn)階段卻存在交易成本高昂、社會(huì)認(rèn)同度低等弊端,故不宜采用。而通知優(yōu)先規(guī)則雖然在對(duì)抗第三人問(wèn)題上的效果不如登記優(yōu)先規(guī)則,但卻優(yōu)于時(shí)間優(yōu)先規(guī)則,故應(yīng)為我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段立法所采。
[Abstract]:Assignment of creditor's rights is a basic system of modern civil and commercial law. In this paper, the author takes the total transfer of the named creditor's rights as the object of study, the logical analysis as the main axis, the sociological analysis, the semantic analysis and other legal interpretation methods as the auxiliary. This paper systematically demonstrates the necessity and feasibility of the notice as the effective element of creditor's rights in ordinary civil law, and the notice as the protection of the debtor's interests in the relations among the transferor, assignee, debtor, third party, etc. Balancing the interests of the third party and finally constructing the theory of formal transfer of creditor's rights. The full text consists of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction explains the significance of the topic, the scope of the study and the method of the study, the conclusion summarizes the full text, and puts forward the idea of the unity of the mode of right change. The text is divided into three chapters. The first chapter mainly discusses the validity of the assignment of creditor's rights. In the course of investigating and comparing the three typical models of "real right change" and "creditor's right change mode", the author finds that there is no distinction between creditor's rights assignment contract and creditor's right assignment in various countries. Both the credibility of the notice and the lack of confidence in promoting the circulation of the creditor's rights abandon the formal requirement of the transfer of the creditor's rights and adopt the mode of "consensual transfer of the creditor's rights". However, the mode of "transfer of creditor's rights by agreement" is deficient because it does not conform to the nature of debt, and is contrary to legal logic and social reason. In fact, the criterion of whether or not the right is transferred should be what kind of legal fact the transferee can dispose of the right after the occurrence, or the transferee has the right from then on. In the system of assignment of creditor's rights, this kind of legal fact is undoubtedly a notice, and the nature of a notice is a quasi-legal act, which should be expressed by intention. The second chapter mainly discusses the protection of the debtor's interests by notice. Through the investigation and analysis of the two kinds of legislation examples of liberalism and notificationism, the author judges the malpractice of taking "knowledge" as the legislative example of transferring the actual effective elements of creditor's rights. This paper demonstrates the necessity of taking notice as the effective element of transfer of creditor's rights to protect the interests of debtor. On this basis, the author believes that in order to protect the interests of the debtor, the notice of announcement should be strictly applied, and the notice of conditional application of litigation should be applied; whether the transferor or the transferee is the wrong notification, the effect of apparent transfer should occur. Regardless of the debtor's goodwill, malicious or not. The third chapter mainly discusses the interest balance between notice and third party. Because the contract of assignment of creditor's rights is not equal to the validity of assignment of creditor's rights, it is possible for the creditor's rights to be reassigned before the transfer of creditor's rights, which leads to the problem of priority in the multiple assignment of creditor's rights. After investigating and analyzing the time priority rule, notice priority rule and registration priority rule in the multiple assignment of creditor's rights, the author thinks that the registration priority rule has the most advantage in balancing the interests of the third party, and the notice priority rule takes the second place. Time first rule is the worst. However, in the transfer of creditor's rights in common civil law, the rule of priority of registration has some disadvantages such as high transaction cost and low degree of social identity at the present stage, so it is not suitable to adopt it. Although the priority rule of notification is not as effective as the rule of registration priority against the third party, it is superior to the rule of time priority, so it should be adopted in the legislation of our country at the present stage.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 施漢嶸;析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干法律問(wèn)題[J];法律適用;2003年07期

2 張雪忠;通知:債權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)的生效要件——對(duì)傳統(tǒng)立法與理論的反思[J];法學(xué);2005年07期

3 李莉莎;論債權(quán)讓與中的第三人利益保護(hù)[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2005年05期

4 韓海光,崔建遠(yuǎn);論債權(quán)讓與和對(duì)抗要件[J];政治與法律;2003年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 鮑晟;債權(quán)讓與的法律構(gòu)成與效力研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2006年

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

，

本文編號(hào)：1850341