反担保法律适用问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-25 17:29

【摘要】：担保制度的设立在保障债权人债权方面发挥了重要作用,但同时担保的设立使担保人的追偿权置于不能实现的风险中,反担保的出现即可解决这一制度的固有缺陷,维护担保人的合法权益。作为担保的一种特殊方式,反担保在主体、对象、方式与担保存在着明显的区别。但由于对反担保立法的国家并不多,我国关于反担保的法律规定也仅有几款法条,加之反担保本身复杂的法律关系,在理解上容易产生错误认识,因此理清反担保与担保及其他法律概念之间的区别与联系十分重要。对于法律问题的讨论不能仅局限于理论,只有结合法律实践才能有正确的理解。本文通过对几个案例进行介绍,归纳出案件的争议焦点并加以分析,以求对反担保制度中若干问题的法律适用、案件裁判提供恰当的指引。第一部分是问题的提出,通过对四个案例的介绍提出了下列问题:反担保保证期间没有约定或者约定不明时,保证期间的起算点如何起算,是从代偿之日起算还是自“主债务履行期”届满之日起算?违反公司法第16条尤其是第2款规定的反担保合同是否有效?反担保人的抗辩权有哪些?第二部分是阐释了反担保制度的基本原理。反担保是指第三人为债务人提供担保时,为保证将来对债务人追偿权的实现,要求债务人为其提供担保的行为。反担保在性质上是一种附条件的法律行为,在债务人到期不偿还债务,本担保人向债权人承担担保责任、产生对债务人的追偿权之后才起作用。反担保人的主体可以是债务人也可以是债务人以外的第三人,反担保的担保对象是追偿权,属于债权请求权,因此反担保与担保存在着差别。反担保不适用于留置和定金,这是在适用的方式方面与担保的不同之处。第三部分是关于在没有约定或约定不明的情况下,作为反担保的保证期间如何起算的问题。本文认为实践中多采用从代偿之日起计算反担保保证期间的方式不具有合理性。在没有约定时遵循6个月的规定,约定不明时遵循2年的规定,反担保的保证期间都应从主债务履行期限届满之日起计算。当然此时的主债务应理解为债务人对担保人追偿权的履行义务,这才是反担保合同的主债务。第四部分则是关于违反公司法第16条的反担保合同效力问题。由于对违反该条的合同认定为无效合同并没有法律、行政法规上的依据,公司法第16条并非是效力性强制性规定并且决议的内部程序性规定不得对抗善意第三人,法院不能直接依据该条认定反担保合同无效。第五部分是关于反担保人的抗辩权问题。反担保人享有的抗辩权有:援引主债务人的抗辩权、援引担保人的抗辩权以及反担保人自己的抗辩。首先,尽管担保人未援引主债务人放弃的抗辩权而承担责任,其追偿权不受影响,但反担保人可就该部分提出抗辩,原理是“债务人在抛弃自己利益时,不得抛弃他人享有的利益。”任何人只享有对自己权利的处分权,因自己的行为影响到他人时,这种影响只有在为他人带来利益或有利时,法律才对这种行为表示认可;其次,根据担保法的立法原意,反担保人援引担保人的抗辩权具有正当性;最后,作为合同的当事人反担保人自己也应该享有一定的抗辩权,主要包括反担保责任期间经过的抗辩、反担保债务诉讼时效经过的抗辩、反担保合同无效的抗辩、超出反担保范围的抗辩等。
[Abstract]:The establishment of security system plays an important role in guaranteeing the creditor's rights, but at the same time the establishment of security makes the guarantor's right of recourse in the risk that can not be realized. The emergence of counter-guarantee can solve the inherent defects of the system and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the guarantor. There are obvious differences between ways and guarantees. However, because there are not many countries that legislate on counter-guarantees, there are only a few laws and regulations on counter-guarantees in our country, and the complicated legal relationship between counter-guarantees itself, it is easy to make mistake in understanding. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the differences between counter-guarantees and guarantees and other legal concepts. The discussion of legal issues should not be confined to theory, but should be combined with legal practice to have a correct understanding. This paper introduces several cases, summarizes the controversial focus of the case and makes an analysis in order to provide appropriate guidance for the application of law to certain issues in the anti-guarantee system and the judgment of the case. The first part is the question, through the introduction of four cases raised the following questions: when the period of counter-guarantee is not agreed or the agreement is not clear, how to calculate the starting point of the guarantee period, is it from the date of compensation or from the date of the expiration of the "principal debt performance period"? The second part explains the basic principles of the counter-guarantee system. Counter-guarantee refers to the act of requiring the debtor to provide security for the realization of the debtor's right of recourse in the future when the third party provides security for the debtor. Legal acts, in the debtor's default, the guarantor to the creditor to assume the responsibility for security, resulting in the debtor's right of recourse after the effect. Counter-guarantor may be the main body of the debtor can also be a third party other than the debtor, the object of security is recourse, belongs to the claim for creditor's rights, so counter-guarantee and burden. The third part is about how to calculate the guarantee period as a counter-guarantee in the absence of agreement or unclear agreement. This paper argues that in practice, the counter-guarantee period should be calculated from the date of compensation. In the absence of an agreement to follow the provisions of six months, the agreement is not clear to follow the provisions of two years, anti-guarantee period should be calculated from the date of the expiration of the main debt performance period. The fourth part is about the validity of the anti-guaranty contract in violation of Article 16 of the Company Law. Since there is no law and administrative rules and regulations on the validity of the contract which is invalid in violation of Article 16 of the Company Law, Article 16 of the Company Law is not a mandatory validity provision and the internal procedural provisions of the resolution shall not be against bona fide third parties, the court will not The fifth part is about the counterguarantee's right of defense. The counterguarantee enjoys the right of defense: invoking the principal debtor's right of defense, invoking the guarantor's right of defense and counterguarantee's own defense. First, although the guarantor does not invoke the right of defense abandoned by the principal debtor, he assumes it. Liability, its right of recourse is not affected, but the counter-guarantor may plead against this part, on the principle that "the debtor shall not abandon the interests enjoyed by others when he abandons his own interests." Any person only enjoys the right to dispose of his own rights, because his own actions affect others, and this effect is only in the interests or benefits of others, the law. Only then does the law approve of this kind of behavior; secondly, according to the legislative intent of the security law, the counterguarantor's right of defense to invoke the guarantor is legitimate; finally, as a party to a contract, the counterguarantor himself should also enjoy a certain right of defense, mainly including the defense during the period of counterguarantee liability, and the defense against the limitation of action for counterguarantee debt. Argue that a counterclaim against an invalid guaranty contract is beyond the defense of the scope of the counterguarantee.
【学位授予单位】：江西理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】