保證人放棄主債時效抗辯時能否行使追償權(quán)辨析.rar
保證人放棄主債時效抗辯時能否行使追償權(quán)辨析,13670字19頁包括開題報告，任務(wù)書，論文，文獻綜述等整套完整資料!目錄摘要iiabstractiii引言1一、保證人追償權(quán)發(fā)生的基礎(chǔ)2（一）保證人追償權(quán)的概念與性質(zhì)2（二）保證人追償權(quán)的發(fā)生基礎(chǔ)2二、現(xiàn)行法下保證人追償權(quán)行使的困境3（一）保證人追償權(quán)法律制度在司法實踐中所產(chǎn)...
該文檔為壓縮文件,包含的文件列表如下:
內(nèi)容介紹
原文檔由會員 lyy1314 發(fā)布
保證人放棄主債時效抗辯時能否行使追償權(quán)辨析
13670字 19頁
包括開題報告，任務(wù)書，論文，文獻綜述等整套完整資料!
目 錄
摘要 II
Abstract III
引言 1
一、保證人追償權(quán)發(fā)生的基礎(chǔ) 2
（一）保證人追償權(quán)的概念與性質(zhì) 2
（二）保證人追償權(quán)的發(fā)生基礎(chǔ) 2
二、現(xiàn)行法下保證人追償權(quán)行使的困境 3
（一）保證人追償權(quán)法律制度在司法實踐中所產(chǎn)生的問題與學(xué)者見解 3
1.肯定說 3
2.否定說 5
（二）問題產(chǎn)生的原因與解決途徑 6
1.問題產(chǎn)生的原因分析 6
2.問題的解決思路與理由分析 8
三、保證人追償權(quán)制度的重構(gòu)與問題的解決 10
（一）保證人追償權(quán)的行使與其通知義務(wù)的履行 10
（二）問題的解決 11
1.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為委托法律關(guān)系的情況 12
2.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為無因管理關(guān)系的情況 12
3.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為贈與關(guān)系的情況 13
結(jié)語: 14
參考文獻： 15
致謝： 16
摘要
保證合同為單務(wù)合同，保證人只對債權(quán)人負擔(dān)保證債務(wù)和承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任，而不對債權(quán)人享有任何實體上之權(quán)利，這明顯對保證人不利，但保證人仍然愿意為主債務(wù)人提供 保證擔(dān)保，顯然，保證人與主債務(wù)人之間存在著某種保證原因關(guān)系，基于此種關(guān)系，保證人才愿意為主債務(wù)人提供保證擔(dān)保。而保證人之所以愿意為主債務(wù)人提供保證擔(dān)保，要么是出于主債務(wù)人的委托，要么是保證人未經(jīng)主債務(wù)人的委托而主動為主債務(wù)人的債務(wù)提供保證擔(dān)保，要么是保證人出于贈與意思而為主債務(wù)人的債務(wù)提供保證擔(dān)保。因此要解決保證人在放棄主債務(wù)時效抗辯時能否向主債務(wù)人行使追償權(quán)的問題就應(yīng)該從這三種保證原因關(guān)系入手。
文章采用比較分析的方法。首先分析指出我國擔(dān)保法對保證人追償權(quán)發(fā)生基礎(chǔ)所采取的立法例，進而分析指出我國采取此種立法例是保證人放棄主債務(wù)時效抗辯時能否行使追償權(quán)這個問題難以得到公平合理解決的原因。針對這個原因并在比較總結(jié)、借鑒我國學(xué)者對此問題的解決經(jīng)驗，進一步分析指出要公平合理地解決保證人追償權(quán)的問題，應(yīng)該借鑒日本立法例從保證原因關(guān)系入手。文章接著論證我國采取此種立法例的理論與實踐意義，在此基礎(chǔ)之上，文章從保證原因關(guān)系入手并結(jié)合保證人與主債務(wù)人之間的互負通知義務(wù)的履行情況，再對保證人放棄主債時效抗辯能否行使追償權(quán)進行具體分析與解答。
關(guān)鍵詞：保證原因 保證人追償權(quán) 通知義務(wù)
Abstract
Guaranty contract is a unilateral contract, so guarantor just redeem the guaranty obligation and assume the guaranty liability, but not enjoy any benefits from creditor. Obviously, it’s unfavorable to the guarantor. However, the guarantor is still willing to provide security of guaranty for the debtor. It’s clear that there is a certain legal relationship between them.Owing to that relationship, the guarantor provides the guaranty for the debtor.
The reason that the guarantor is willing to provide guaranty for the debtor is either out of the debtor’s commission, or is out of guarantor’s voluntary service ,or is out of the guarantor’s meaning of gift. So, how to solve the problem that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery.We should distinguish and analyze the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor.The paper adopts comparatively analytical method. Firstly, the paper points out what legislation example on the basis of guarantor’s right of recovery adopted by China’ legislative branch. Then the analysis points out what the legislation example we have adopted is the reason why the issue is difficult to be resolved fairly and reasonable. For this reason and in the comparative summary of the scholars’ experience in resolving the issue in China. Further analysis points out that we should learn from Japanese lawmaking example which resolves the issue in the light of the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor. Then the paper continues to expound and prove this kind of regular legislation theory and practice of significance that our country should adopt in the future. At this foundation on，the paper try to solve the issue that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery with analysis on the notice obligation are redeemed by the debtor and guarantor.
Key words: The Reason for Guaranty; Guarantor’s Right of Recovery; Notification Obligations
參考文獻
[5]郭明瑞,房紹坤,張平華.擔(dān)保法[M].1,北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,2006.
[6]朱凡.人的擔(dān)?；局贫妊芯縖M]. 1,北京:中國檢查出版社,2006.
[7]徐武生.擔(dān)保法理論與實踐[M].1,北京:工商出版社,1999.
[8]程嘯.保證合同研究[M].1,北京:法律出版社,2006.
[9]鄭玉波.民法債編各論(下冊)[M].16,臺北: 三民書局,1995.
[10]劉保玉 ,呂文江.債權(quán)擔(dān)保制度研究[M]. 1,北京:中國民主法制出版社,2000.
[11]史尚寬.債法各論[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2000.
[12]郭明瑞,房紹坤,張平華.擔(dān)保法[M].1,北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,2006.
[13]董開軍.中華人民共和國擔(dān)保法原理與條文釋義[M]1,北京:中國計劃出版社,1995.
[14]崔建遠.合同法[M].3,北京:法律出版社,2004.
[15]江平.民法學(xué)[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2007.
[16]王澤鑒.債法原理[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[17]王澤鑒.法律思維與民法實例：請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)理論體系[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[18]李國光,高圣平.擔(dān)保法及配套規(guī)定新釋新解.[M].2,北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[19]田士城,寧全成.擔(dān)保制度比較研究[M].1,河南:河南大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[20]費安玲.比較擔(dān)保法—以德國、法國、瑞士、意大利、英國、和中國擔(dān)保法為研究對象[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2004.
[21]葛承書著.民法時效—從實證的角度出發(fā)[M].1,北京:法律出版社,2007.
[22]王蘊.保證人對主債務(wù)人享有追償權(quán).江蘇法制報,2002年9月23日.
13670字 19頁
包括開題報告，任務(wù)書，論文，文獻綜述等整套完整資料!
目 錄
摘要 II
Abstract III
引言 1
一、保證人追償權(quán)發(fā)生的基礎(chǔ) 2
（一）保證人追償權(quán)的概念與性質(zhì) 2
（二）保證人追償權(quán)的發(fā)生基礎(chǔ) 2
二、現(xiàn)行法下保證人追償權(quán)行使的困境 3
（一）保證人追償權(quán)法律制度在司法實踐中所產(chǎn)生的問題與學(xué)者見解 3
1.肯定說 3
2.否定說 5
（二）問題產(chǎn)生的原因與解決途徑 6
1.問題產(chǎn)生的原因分析 6
2.問題的解決思路與理由分析 8
三、保證人追償權(quán)制度的重構(gòu)與問題的解決 10
（一）保證人追償權(quán)的行使與其通知義務(wù)的履行 10
（二）問題的解決 11
1.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為委托法律關(guān)系的情況 12
2.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為無因管理關(guān)系的情況 12
3.當(dāng)保證人與主債務(wù)人之間為贈與關(guān)系的情況 13
結(jié)語: 14
參考文獻： 15
致謝： 16
摘要
保證合同為單務(wù)合同，保證人只對債權(quán)人負擔(dān)保證債務(wù)和承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任，而不對債權(quán)人享有任何實體上之權(quán)利，這明顯對保證人不利，但保證人仍然愿意為主債務(wù)人提供 保證擔(dān)保，顯然，保證人與主債務(wù)人之間存在著某種保證原因關(guān)系，基于此種關(guān)系，保證人才愿意為主債務(wù)人提供保證擔(dān)保。而保證人之所以愿意為主債務(wù)人提供保證擔(dān)保，要么是出于主債務(wù)人的委托，要么是保證人未經(jīng)主債務(wù)人的委托而主動為主債務(wù)人的債務(wù)提供保證擔(dān)保，要么是保證人出于贈與意思而為主債務(wù)人的債務(wù)提供保證擔(dān)保。因此要解決保證人在放棄主債務(wù)時效抗辯時能否向主債務(wù)人行使追償權(quán)的問題就應(yīng)該從這三種保證原因關(guān)系入手。
文章采用比較分析的方法。首先分析指出我國擔(dān)保法對保證人追償權(quán)發(fā)生基礎(chǔ)所采取的立法例，進而分析指出我國采取此種立法例是保證人放棄主債務(wù)時效抗辯時能否行使追償權(quán)這個問題難以得到公平合理解決的原因。針對這個原因并在比較總結(jié)、借鑒我國學(xué)者對此問題的解決經(jīng)驗，進一步分析指出要公平合理地解決保證人追償權(quán)的問題，應(yīng)該借鑒日本立法例從保證原因關(guān)系入手。文章接著論證我國采取此種立法例的理論與實踐意義，在此基礎(chǔ)之上，文章從保證原因關(guān)系入手并結(jié)合保證人與主債務(wù)人之間的互負通知義務(wù)的履行情況，再對保證人放棄主債時效抗辯能否行使追償權(quán)進行具體分析與解答。
關(guān)鍵詞：保證原因 保證人追償權(quán) 通知義務(wù)
Abstract
Guaranty contract is a unilateral contract, so guarantor just redeem the guaranty obligation and assume the guaranty liability, but not enjoy any benefits from creditor. Obviously, it’s unfavorable to the guarantor. However, the guarantor is still willing to provide security of guaranty for the debtor. It’s clear that there is a certain legal relationship between them.Owing to that relationship, the guarantor provides the guaranty for the debtor.
The reason that the guarantor is willing to provide guaranty for the debtor is either out of the debtor’s commission, or is out of guarantor’s voluntary service ,or is out of the guarantor’s meaning of gift. So, how to solve the problem that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery.We should distinguish and analyze the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor.The paper adopts comparatively analytical method. Firstly, the paper points out what legislation example on the basis of guarantor’s right of recovery adopted by China’ legislative branch. Then the analysis points out what the legislation example we have adopted is the reason why the issue is difficult to be resolved fairly and reasonable. For this reason and in the comparative summary of the scholars’ experience in resolving the issue in China. Further analysis points out that we should learn from Japanese lawmaking example which resolves the issue in the light of the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor. Then the paper continues to expound and prove this kind of regular legislation theory and practice of significance that our country should adopt in the future. At this foundation on，the paper try to solve the issue that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery with analysis on the notice obligation are redeemed by the debtor and guarantor.
Key words: The Reason for Guaranty; Guarantor’s Right of Recovery; Notification Obligations
參考文獻
[5]郭明瑞,房紹坤,張平華.擔(dān)保法[M].1,北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,2006.
[6]朱凡.人的擔(dān)?；局贫妊芯縖M]. 1,北京:中國檢查出版社,2006.
[7]徐武生.擔(dān)保法理論與實踐[M].1,北京:工商出版社,1999.
[8]程嘯.保證合同研究[M].1,北京:法律出版社,2006.
[9]鄭玉波.民法債編各論(下冊)[M].16,臺北: 三民書局,1995.
[10]劉保玉 ,呂文江.債權(quán)擔(dān)保制度研究[M]. 1,北京:中國民主法制出版社,2000.
[11]史尚寬.債法各論[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2000.
[12]郭明瑞,房紹坤,張平華.擔(dān)保法[M].1,北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,2006.
[13]董開軍.中華人民共和國擔(dān)保法原理與條文釋義[M]1,北京:中國計劃出版社,1995.
[14]崔建遠.合同法[M].3,北京:法律出版社,2004.
[15]江平.民法學(xué)[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2007.
[16]王澤鑒.債法原理[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[17]王澤鑒.法律思維與民法實例：請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)理論體系[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[18]李國光,高圣平.擔(dān)保法及配套規(guī)定新釋新解.[M].2,北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[19]田士城,寧全成.擔(dān)保制度比較研究[M].1,河南:河南大學(xué)出版社,2001.
[20]費安玲.比較擔(dān)保法—以德國、法國、瑞士、意大利、英國、和中國擔(dān)保法為研究對象[M].1,北京:中國政法大學(xué)出版社,2004.
[21]葛承書著.民法時效—從實證的角度出發(fā)[M].1,北京:法律出版社,2007.
[22]王蘊.保證人對主債務(wù)人享有追償權(quán).江蘇法制報,2002年9月23日.
