【摘要】：除權(quán)判決,是法院在公示催告程序中作出的一項(xiàng)宣告票據(jù)無(wú)效的判決。近年來(lái),隨著票據(jù)在經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中的頻繁使用,票據(jù)糾紛也日趨增長(zhǎng),其中因除權(quán)判決引發(fā)的糾紛尤為顯著。由于現(xiàn)有法律對(duì)除權(quán)判決后“持票人”的權(quán)利救濟(jì)規(guī)定不完善,導(dǎo)致了學(xué)界以及司法實(shí)務(wù)中出現(xiàn)了諸多紛爭(zhēng)。本文結(jié)合現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行理論分析得出:究其原因,是因?yàn)槟壳跋嚓P(guān)法律法規(guī)對(duì)除權(quán)判決的性質(zhì)及法律效力規(guī)定模糊,以及對(duì)除權(quán)判決后權(quán)利救濟(jì)途徑規(guī)定不明確,從而導(dǎo)致了學(xué)界與司法實(shí)務(wù)中產(chǎn)生了分歧。為了有效應(yīng)對(duì)此類票據(jù)糾紛,規(guī)范票據(jù)法、民事訴訟法及相關(guān)行政法規(guī)的規(guī)定,更為了高效全面的保護(hù)合法持票人的權(quán)益,我們很有必要對(duì)上述問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析與解答,并對(duì)目前存在的不足之處提出合理的完善建議。本文第一部分,引入案例。通過(guò)介紹A與B之間的票據(jù)糾紛一案,歸納出其中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn),亦即本文所要討論的三大問(wèn)題,分別是:被告獲得除權(quán)判決后,1、原告作為“持票人”是否還是合法的票據(jù)持票人;2、票據(jù)權(quán)利是否仍然存在;3、原告進(jìn)行權(quán)利救濟(jì)時(shí)提起撤銷之訴是否合理。第二部分,考察現(xiàn)狀。針對(duì)我國(guó)除權(quán)判決后,“持票人”救濟(jì)權(quán)利時(shí)遇到的障礙進(jìn)行原因分析,具體包括:現(xiàn)有法律制度上的缺陷,學(xué)界存在分歧意見(jiàn),以及司法實(shí)務(wù)中出現(xiàn)同案不同判的現(xiàn)象三方面。從而引發(fā)出我們對(duì)除權(quán)判決后,“持票人”的法律地位、除權(quán)判決對(duì)“持票人”權(quán)利的影響以及司法救濟(jì)中“訴”的性質(zhì)界定等問(wèn)題的思考。第三部分,亦是本文的重點(diǎn),主要針對(duì)上述焦點(diǎn)提出自己的主張,并重點(diǎn)對(duì)自己的以下觀點(diǎn):1、除權(quán)判決僅具有形式上的既判力,并不具有實(shí)質(zhì)上的既判力;2、除權(quán)判決后,持票人仍為票據(jù)權(quán)利人,仍享有完整的票據(jù)權(quán)利;3、除權(quán)判決后,票據(jù)權(quán)利人沒(méi)有必要提起撤銷之訴,目前《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第二百二十三條中的“訴”應(yīng)明確為另行起訴;4、除權(quán)判決后,“持票人”提起票據(jù)訴訟更為合理等進(jìn)行論證。最后一部分,完善建議。結(jié)合文中歸納出的焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題,聯(lián)系相關(guān)原因分析及理論論證,對(duì)關(guān)于除權(quán)判決后“持票人”權(quán)利救濟(jì)的問(wèn)題,針對(duì)現(xiàn)存法律制度上存在的缺陷,提出一些具體可操作的建議。
[Abstract]:The judgment of abrogation is a judgment of annulment of the instrument made by the court in the procedure of public notice. In recent years, with the frequent use of bills in economic activities, bill disputes are increasing day by day, especially the disputes caused by removal of power. Due to the imperfect provisions of the existing law on the relief of the rights of the "holder" after the removal of the power, there have been many disputes in academic circles and judicial practice. Based on the theoretical analysis of the present situation, this paper concludes that the reason is that the relevant laws and regulations are vague in the nature and legal effect of the power removal judgment, as well as the unclear way of right relief after the power removal judgment, which leads to the differences between the academic circles and the judicial practice. In order to deal with this kind of bill disputes effectively, standardize the provisions of bill law, civil procedure law and related administrative regulations, and protect the rights and interests of legitimate ticket holders efficiently and comprehensively, it is necessary for us to analyze and answer the above problems, and to put forward reasonable suggestions for improvement of the existing shortcomings. In the first part of this paper, a case is introduced. By introducing the bill dispute case between A and B, this paper sums up the focus of the dispute, that is, the three major issues to be discussed in this paper are: after the defendant obtains the judgment of removal, 1, whether the plaintiff, as the "holder" of the bill, is still the legal holder of the bill; 2, whether the right of the bill still exists; 3, whether it is reasonable for the plaintiff to file the cancellation claim when the right relief is carried out. The second part examines the present situation. This paper analyzes the reasons for the obstacles encountered in the relief of the right of "ticket holder" after the removal of power judgment in our country, including the defects of the existing legal system, the existence of different opinions in academic circles, and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case in judicial practice. This leads to our thinking on the legal status of the "holder" after the removal of the right, the influence of the decision on the right of the "holder" and the definition of the nature of the "lawsuit" in judicial relief. The third part, which is also the focus of this paper, mainly puts forward its own views on the above focus, and focuses on the following points of view: (1) the judgment of removing power has only formal res judicata, and does not have substantive res judicata; (2) after the judgment of power, the holder of the bill is still the holder of the bill right and still enjoys the complete right of the bill; 3. After the judgment of power, it is not necessary for the obligee to file a lawsuit for cancellation. At present, the "lawsuit" in Article 223 of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China should be clearly sued separately. 4. after the judgment of the right, it is more reasonable for the "holder" to file a bill lawsuit. The last part, perfect the suggestion. Combined with the focus problems summed up in this paper, combined with the analysis of related reasons and theoretical argumentation, this paper puts forward some concrete and operable suggestions on the relief of the rights of the "holder" after the removal of the power judgment, in view of the defects existing in the existing legal system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王艷梅;;論票據(jù)關(guān)系對(duì)原因關(guān)系之影響[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2015年04期

2 葛治華;羅小平;;除權(quán)判決撤銷之訴:權(quán)利救濟(jì)與程序安定的沖突與平衡——民事訴訟法第223條解讀[J];浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年02期

3 亓丹;;《票據(jù)法》第二十七條批評(píng)[J];湖北函授大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年10期

4 徐曉;;論票據(jù)利益返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)制度的廢除[J];法商研究;2015年03期

5 楊信;;票據(jù)背書(shū)連續(xù)的內(nèi)涵、構(gòu)成要件、司法認(rèn)定及法律效力[J];湖北民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年02期

6 馬向偉;;因公示催告引發(fā)糾紛中的票據(jù)權(quán)利認(rèn)定問(wèn)題[J];山東審判;2015年02期

7 張雪is;;票據(jù)喪失救濟(jì)之公示催告程序疑難問(wèn)題研究——兼論票據(jù)權(quán)利人的認(rèn)定[J];人民司法;2015年08期

8 劉劍軍;;對(duì)我國(guó)票據(jù)喪失之法律救濟(jì)制度的思考[J];山西農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年12期

9 付陳友;;除權(quán)判決后合法持票人的救濟(jì)路徑——兼論公示催告程序之不足與完善[J];宜賓學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年11期

10 滕曉慧;;公示催告期間與票據(jù)背書(shū)轉(zhuǎn)讓時(shí)間的效力問(wèn)題研究[J];內(nèi)蒙古財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 朱道海;;除權(quán)判決后持票人能否主張權(quán)利[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2015年

2 程燁 ;施同生;;票據(jù)被他人申請(qǐng)除權(quán)判決后 合法持票人的權(quán)利如何保護(hù)[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李青;票據(jù)權(quán)利的司法救濟(jì)[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李錚;公示催告期間票據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)讓的有效性探析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 姜楠;除權(quán)判決撤銷后票據(jù)權(quán)利救濟(jì)途徑的法律適用[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 齊凱欣;關(guān)于我國(guó)票據(jù)公示催告程序的法律思考[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué);2014年

4 王國(guó)華;票據(jù)被偽報(bào)喪失之法律救濟(jì)研究[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

5 王瀟;論票據(jù)除權(quán)判決[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

6 李雅琴;票據(jù)除權(quán)判決與真正權(quán)利人之救濟(jì)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

7 謝君穎;除權(quán)判決的司法救濟(jì)制度研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2013年

8 羅勛;論公示催告程序中的除權(quán)判決撤銷制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

9 姜偉;票據(jù)除權(quán)判決法律效力問(wèn)題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

10 闞紅偉;票據(jù)權(quán)利救濟(jì)法律制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2511386