“丝绸公司诉安和公司等债权转让案”评析

发布时间：2018-06-09 04:19

本文选题：保证 + 债务免除　；参考：《湖南大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：债权转让已经成为当今商事贸易中重要的交易类型，它在结算便易和促进资金流通上比传统的现金结算更具有优势。法律鼓励交易，故赋予了当事人在合同领域极大的意思自治空间，然而由于法律对于合同的变更、转移只有为数不多的规定，故当事人在自由处分合同时，可能造成对内和对外不同的表征。我国法律并未就债务免除的形式作出严格的规定，以至于出现多种内容不一致的意思表示时，法院审判缺少法律依据，很难作出统一的判决。丝绸公司诉安和公司等债权转让合同纠纷一案，由于债权转让中债务免除的问题在《债权转让合同》与《债权转让公告》中表述不一致，从而应该以何者为准来对待丝绸公司的债务问题，成为了各法院的审判焦点.事实上，其实质是怎样权衡交易自由与交易安全的价值。纵观案情，各法院对丝绸公司承担责任性质为连带保证责任并无异议。但是，由于主债务人破产清算后业已注销，保证人的保证责任不再具有或然性，故单纯的保证责任继续转让时，丝绸公司已从保证人成为了该笔债务中的主债务人，即丧失了保证的基本属性：从属性。所以丝绸公司的责任应定义为主债务为宜。基于合同自由原则以及合同的相对性和特定性，，当事人之间签订的《债权转让合同》应为最终效力文本，法律并无规定当事人对债权转让内容有向社会公众披露的义务，故《债权转让合同》与《债权转让公告》内容相冲突时，以《债权转让合同》条款为准更为合理。最高人民法院支持免除债务有一则理由为：后手受让人不得取得大于前手的的权利。但是这一规则不是绝对的，尤其在债权逐渐适用于善意取得制度的情况下，当受让人以合理的价格，善意取得该债权时，可能会取得大于前手的权利，所以最高院的判决这一理由值得讨论。当然，是否适用善意取得，还应当具体案情而定。
[Abstract]:Creditor's right transfer has become an important transaction type in commercial trade nowadays. It is more advantageous than the traditional cash settlement in clearing and promoting the circulation of funds. The law encourages transactions, thus giving the parties a great deal of autonomy in the field of contracts. However, since there are only a few provisions in the law for changes in contracts, when the parties dispose of the contracts freely, May result in different internal and external representations. The form of debt relief has not been strictly regulated in our country's law, so that when there are many kinds of inconsistent expressions of intention, the court is short of legal basis, so it is difficult to make a unified judgment. In the case of silk company v. Anhe and other contract disputes over assignment of creditor's rights, due to the problem of debt relief in the assignment of creditor's rights, it is not expressed in the contract of assignment of creditor's rights and the notice of assignment of creditor's rights. So what should be treated as the debt of silk companies, has become the focus of the courts. In fact, its essence is how to balance the value of trade freedom and transaction security. Throughout the case, the courts have no objection to the nature of the silk company's liability as joint warranty. However, since the principal debtor has been cancelled after liquidation and the surety's warranty liability is no longer probable, the silk company has become the principal debtor in the debt by the time the simple warranty liability continues to be transferred, That is, the loss of the guarantee of the basic attribute: slave attribute. So the silk company's liability should be defined as the main debt. Based on the principle of freedom of contract and the relativity and specificity of the contract, the contract of assignment of creditor's rights signed between the parties shall be the final effective text, and the law does not stipulate that the parties have the obligation to disclose the content of the transfer of creditor's rights to the public. Therefore, when the contract of assignment of creditor's rights conflicts with the content of the assignment of creditor's rights, it is more reasonable to take the term of contract of assignment of creditor's rights as the standard. One reason why the Supreme people's Court supports debt forgiveness is that the subsequent transferee may not acquire rights greater than the former. But this rule is not absolute, especially if the claim is gradually applied to the bona fide acquisition system, when the assignee acquires the claim in good faith at a reasonable price, it may acquire a greater right than the previous party, So the reason for the Supreme Court's decision is worth discussing. Of course, the application of bona fide acquisition, also should be specific to the case.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.3

【参考文献】