“并存的债务承担”抑或“连带保证”
发布时间：2018-07-13 16:09
【摘要】：并存的债务承担制度是民法中重要但不被重视的制度,在我国现行的民商事法律中并没有有关并存债务承担的专门规定,在学者的论著当中往往都是做简单的介绍,没有更多的理论分析,更没有与相似制度的比较。本文通过以下四个部分对并存的债务承担和连带保证进行分析,总结出司法实践中对二者的区分标准,以及对并存的债务承担准用连带保证的态度。本文第一部分从几个典型的案例入手,总结出在我国的司法判例中对并存的债务承担和连带保证的几点区分标准。第一,承诺书中是否有较为明确的保证的意思表示;第二,原债权债务关系是否真实客观存在;第三,对承诺条款内容有歧义的,应先根据当事人的约定进行判断;第四,已经明确具体的还款期限、还款计划的。第二部分从理论上对并存的债务承担和连带保证进行比较。在构成要件方面,并存的债务承担要求原债务必须是有效存在的、具有可转移性,而连带保证债务并非如此;并存的债务承担有四种情形,而连带保证必须有债权人和保证人的合意。在法律效果方面,并存的债务承担中第三人承担的债务与原债务具有同一性,而在连带保证中保证合同是从合同,原债务和保证债务是主从债务关系;并存的债务承担中当事人仅受诉讼时效的限制,而连带保证中有保证期间的限制;并存的债务承担中债务具有无因性,而连带保证中的保证合同的效力受主合同的影响;并存的债务承担和连带保证具有相似的抗辩权和追偿权。第三部分论述并存的债务承担可否准用保证。司法实践中的情况多种多样,并不像理论上区分的那么简单,如果我们死板得套用理论上的条条框框来区分二者,则会显得太过学究。因为无论是二者的制度功能还是三方当事人之间的权利义务结构都极具相似性,实践中处理并存的债务承担当事人间的权利义务纠纷时可以类推适用连带保证的相关规定。第四部分是对全文的总结。
[Abstract]:The coexistence of debt bearing system is an important but not valued system in civil law. In the current civil and commercial law of China, there is no special provision about the co-existence of debt. In the books of the scholars, there are often simple introduction, no more theoretical analysis, and no comparison with similar systems. This article passes the following four departments. This paper analyzes the coexistence of debt commitment and joint guarantee, summarizes the criteria for distinguishing the two in judicial practice, and the attitude of joint and multiple guarantee for the coexistence of debt. The first part of this paper, starting with several typical cases, summarizes several areas of the coexistence of debt and joint guarantee in the judicial precedents of our country. Second, whether the relationship between the original debt and debt is true and objective exists; third, if there is a ambiguity in the content of the commitment clause, it should first be judged according to the parties' agreement; fourth, the period of repayment and the repayment plan have been clearly specified. The second part is theoretically and theoretically correct. In terms of the constitutive requirements, the coexistence of debt bears the obligation that the original debt must be effective, transferable, and the joint guarantee is not the case; the coexistence of debt bears four cases, and the joint guarantee must have the agreement of the creditor and the guarantor. The debt undertaken by the third party is the same as the original debt, and in the joint guarantee, the contract is from the contract, the original debt and the guaranteed debt are the principal and subordinate debt; the coexistence of the party is restricted by the limitation of the limitation of action only, and the guaranty period is limited in the joint guarantee; the coexistence of debt undertakes the debt. It has the influence of the validity of the contract with the non cause, and the joint and several guaranty contracts; the coexistence of debt undertaking and the joint guarantee have the similar right of defense and the right of recourse. The third part discusses whether the coexistence of debt can be guaranteed. It will seem too scholarly for us to distinguish between the two parties in theory, because both the institutional function of the two party and the right and duty structure between the three parties are very similar. In practice, dealing with the coexistence of debts can be analogous to the relevance of the joint and several guarantees in the case of the rights and obligations of the parties. The fourth part is a summary of the full text.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923
[Abstract]:The coexistence of debt bearing system is an important but not valued system in civil law. In the current civil and commercial law of China, there is no special provision about the co-existence of debt. In the books of the scholars, there are often simple introduction, no more theoretical analysis, and no comparison with similar systems. This article passes the following four departments. This paper analyzes the coexistence of debt commitment and joint guarantee, summarizes the criteria for distinguishing the two in judicial practice, and the attitude of joint and multiple guarantee for the coexistence of debt. The first part of this paper, starting with several typical cases, summarizes several areas of the coexistence of debt and joint guarantee in the judicial precedents of our country. Second, whether the relationship between the original debt and debt is true and objective exists; third, if there is a ambiguity in the content of the commitment clause, it should first be judged according to the parties' agreement; fourth, the period of repayment and the repayment plan have been clearly specified. The second part is theoretically and theoretically correct. In terms of the constitutive requirements, the coexistence of debt bears the obligation that the original debt must be effective, transferable, and the joint guarantee is not the case; the coexistence of debt bears four cases, and the joint guarantee must have the agreement of the creditor and the guarantor. The debt undertaken by the third party is the same as the original debt, and in the joint guarantee, the contract is from the contract, the original debt and the guaranteed debt are the principal and subordinate debt; the coexistence of the party is restricted by the limitation of the limitation of action only, and the guaranty period is limited in the joint guarantee; the coexistence of debt undertakes the debt. It has the influence of the validity of the contract with the non cause, and the joint and several guaranty contracts; the coexistence of debt undertaking and the joint guarantee have the similar right of defense and the right of recourse. The third part discusses whether the coexistence of debt can be guaranteed. It will seem too scholarly for us to distinguish between the two parties in theory, because both the institutional function of the two party and the right and duty structure between the three parties are very similar. In practice, dealing with the coexistence of debts can be analogous to the relevance of the joint and several guarantees in the case of the rights and obligations of the parties. The fourth part is a summary of the full text.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 蒲朝琦;;探析并存的债务承担制度[J];知识经济;2013年04期
2 戴红兵,陈发桂;债务承担新探[J];广西政法管理干部学院学报;2001年04期
3 王建文;论死者生前债务承担[J];南京化工大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2001年02期
4 胡健;;论免责债务承担的构成要件及法律效果[J];当代经理人;2005年03期
5 鲁建法;一起借款纠纷案的剖析——企业改制过程中的债务承担问题[J];西部论丛;2005年03期
6 张颖杰;万良杰;;国企出售与债务承担问题探讨[J];商业时代;2007年03期
7 石涛锋;尹晓健;;债务承担若干法律问题研究及风险防范[J];河北金融;2007年08期
8 张振;;债务承担的性质认定问题研究[J];潍坊学院学报;2008年05期
9 张文青;;并存债务承担的理论与实践研究[J];东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2009年S1期
10 韩文涛;;债务加入的学理探究与实务辨析——以一则案例为视角[J];新余高专学报;2009年04期
相关重要报纸文章 前10条
1 无锡市北塘区人民法院 高鑫;债务承担若干法律问题研究[N];商务时报;2008年
2 张秋婷 肖s，
本文编号：2119991
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2119991.html
