论《民法典》视角下的代偿请求权

The Right of Claiming Substitutionary in the Perspective of the Civil Code

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

黄一粟

导师:

黄家镇

导师单位:

民商法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

代偿请求权;履行不能;不当得利;违约责任

摘要:

代偿请求权为多数大陆法系国家及地区规定的一项制度,我国民法虽继受了许多大陆法上的规则,但始终没有明文规定代偿请求权,理论上多有学者提出确立代偿请求权的立法建议,但是目前尚未被采纳。本文将首先从我国司法实务出发,考察我国法律对于代偿请求权的制度需求,探究在代偿请求权立法缺位的情况下,相关纠纷的司法实务现状以及存在的问题,论证代偿请求权于我国的制度必要性。之后,本文将探究代偿请求权在《民法典》现有制度体系下的法理基础并尝试进行制度构建,本文将在分析比较法上提出的各种代偿请求权法理基础的同时,结合我国现有法律制度体系,选择适合我国法的代偿请求权法理基础,进而通过法律续造的方法在《民法典》现有条文的基础上构建出代偿请求权。最后,本文将从法律适用的角度,对代偿请求权与现有制度进行辨析与协调。本文第一部分以实践中两类案件为基础进行类案分析,这两类案件反映的问题一为已交付未变更登记房屋灭失产生的补偿金或赔偿金归属问题,二为一物数卖情形下受害人的利益保护问题。首先,笔者根据从裁判文书网上搜集到的裁判文书,分析司法实务中对于这些纠纷的现阶段解决方案以及这些方案存在的问题;其次,笔者从理论层面,介绍并分析学者提出的解决这些问题的其他路径,论述这些解决方案的可行性以及存在的缺陷;最后,笔者将论述比较法上如何运用代偿请求权以及其他类似制度解决前述问题,分析代偿请求权对于前述问题解决的优势所在,论证我国法对代偿请求权的制度需求。本文第二部分将确定代偿请求权在《民法典》体系下的法理基础,进而通过法律续造的方式对代偿请求权进行制度构建。首先,由于比较法上学者对于代偿请求权的法理基础提出了相当多的理论,故笔者将在介绍并分析比较法上代偿请求权的各种法理基础的同时,结合我国现有的民法制度,分别讨论各项理论学说的优缺点以及与我国法的适配性,在确保不对我国现有法律制度产生过大影响的前提下,选择适合我国法的代偿请求权法理基础。其次,对于代偿请求权的制度构建,笔者将分两步进行。第一步,笔者将在《民法典》中寻找构建代偿请求权的法律续造基础条文,具体而言,笔者将根据代偿请求权的法理基础,并着眼于代偿请求权的法律后果,首先将可供选择的条文限定为两条:一是不当得利制度的相关条文,二是债务不履行制度的相关条文;之后,笔者分别考察以两项制度的相关条文为基础构建出代偿请求权的可行性,并最终确定以债务不履行制度的相关条文作为代偿请求权法律续造的法条基础。第二步,笔者以该条文为基础,分析《民法典》体系下代偿请求权的各项构成要件,并确定各构成要件的含义。本文第三部分从法律适用的角度,对构建出的代偿请求权与现有制度进行辨析,论述代偿请求权在适用过程中与《民法典》现有制度的衔接问题。具体而言,笔者将就两类制度与代偿请求权的适用衔接进行论述,第一类为除违约以外的其他可能因“债务不履行”而得以适用的制度,第二类为除代偿请求权以外的其他违约责任以及与违约责任相关的制度。对于现有制度,笔者基本采当前学界通说理论,并以此为基础,就各项制度与代偿请求权的衔接问题进行讨论,以达到构建出的代偿请求权与现有民法制度体系相融洽的目的。

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2023-06-18

引用参考

黄一粟. 论《民法典》视角下的代偿请求权[D]. 西南政法大学,2023.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论《民法典》视角下的代偿请求权
  • dc.title
  • The Right of Claiming Substitutionary in the Perspective of the Civil Code
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20200301050298
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 黄一粟
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2023
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 民法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 黄家镇
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 代偿请求权,履行不能,不当得利,违约责任
  • dc.subject
  • The Right of Claiming Substitution; Failure to Perform; Unjust Enrichment; Liability for Breach
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 代偿请求权为多数大陆法系国家及地区规定的一项制度,我国民法虽继受了许多大陆法上的规则,但始终没有明文规定代偿请求权,理论上多有学者提出确立代偿请求权的立法建议,但是目前尚未被采纳。本文将首先从我国司法实务出发,考察我国法律对于代偿请求权的制度需求,探究在代偿请求权立法缺位的情况下,相关纠纷的司法实务现状以及存在的问题,论证代偿请求权于我国的制度必要性。之后,本文将探究代偿请求权在《民法典》现有制度体系下的法理基础并尝试进行制度构建,本文将在分析比较法上提出的各种代偿请求权法理基础的同时,结合我国现有法律制度体系,选择适合我国法的代偿请求权法理基础,进而通过法律续造的方法在《民法典》现有条文的基础上构建出代偿请求权。最后,本文将从法律适用的角度,对代偿请求权与现有制度进行辨析与协调。本文第一部分以实践中两类案件为基础进行类案分析,这两类案件反映的问题一为已交付未变更登记房屋灭失产生的补偿金或赔偿金归属问题,二为一物数卖情形下受害人的利益保护问题。首先,笔者根据从裁判文书网上搜集到的裁判文书,分析司法实务中对于这些纠纷的现阶段解决方案以及这些方案存在的问题;其次,笔者从理论层面,介绍并分析学者提出的解决这些问题的其他路径,论述这些解决方案的可行性以及存在的缺陷;最后,笔者将论述比较法上如何运用代偿请求权以及其他类似制度解决前述问题,分析代偿请求权对于前述问题解决的优势所在,论证我国法对代偿请求权的制度需求。本文第二部分将确定代偿请求权在《民法典》体系下的法理基础,进而通过法律续造的方式对代偿请求权进行制度构建。首先,由于比较法上学者对于代偿请求权的法理基础提出了相当多的理论,故笔者将在介绍并分析比较法上代偿请求权的各种法理基础的同时,结合我国现有的民法制度,分别讨论各项理论学说的优缺点以及与我国法的适配性,在确保不对我国现有法律制度产生过大影响的前提下,选择适合我国法的代偿请求权法理基础。其次,对于代偿请求权的制度构建,笔者将分两步进行。第一步,笔者将在《民法典》中寻找构建代偿请求权的法律续造基础条文,具体而言,笔者将根据代偿请求权的法理基础,并着眼于代偿请求权的法律后果,首先将可供选择的条文限定为两条:一是不当得利制度的相关条文,二是债务不履行制度的相关条文;之后,笔者分别考察以两项制度的相关条文为基础构建出代偿请求权的可行性,并最终确定以债务不履行制度的相关条文作为代偿请求权法律续造的法条基础。第二步,笔者以该条文为基础,分析《民法典》体系下代偿请求权的各项构成要件,并确定各构成要件的含义。本文第三部分从法律适用的角度,对构建出的代偿请求权与现有制度进行辨析,论述代偿请求权在适用过程中与《民法典》现有制度的衔接问题。具体而言,笔者将就两类制度与代偿请求权的适用衔接进行论述,第一类为除违约以外的其他可能因“债务不履行”而得以适用的制度,第二类为除代偿请求权以外的其他违约责任以及与违约责任相关的制度。对于现有制度,笔者基本采当前学界通说理论,并以此为基础,就各项制度与代偿请求权的衔接问题进行讨论,以达到构建出的代偿请求权与现有民法制度体系相融洽的目的。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Although China's civil law has inherited many rules of the civil law system, it has never explicitly provided for the right of claiming substitution. This paper will first examine the institutional needs of the right of claim substitution in China from the perspective of China's judicial practice, explore the current situation of judicial practice and the problems of the relevant disputes in the absence of legislation on the right of claiming substitution, and argue the institutional necessity of the right of claiming substitution in China. After that, this paper will explore the jurisprudential basis of the right of claiming substitution under the existing system of the Civil Code and try to construct the system of the right of claiming substitution. Finally, this paper will analyze and harmonize the right of claiming substitution with the existing system from the perspective of legal application.The first part of this paper is based on two types of cases in practice, one of which is the issue of compensation or damages for the loss of a house that has been delivered but not registered, and the other is the issue of protecting the interests of people who have suffered the loss in the case of multiple sales of one thing. Firstly, I will analyze the current solutions to these disputes in judicial practice and the problems of these solutions based on the adjudication documents collected from the Judgment Document Website; secondly, I will introduce and analyze other paths proposed by scholars to solve these problems from the theoretical level, and discuss the feasibility and defects of these solutions; finally, I will discuss how the right of claiming substitution and other similar systems can be used in comparative law to solve the aforementioned problems, analyze the advantages of the right of claiming substitution for solving the aforementioned problems, and argue the need for the system of the right of claiming substitution in our law.The second part of this paper will determine the jurisprudential basis of the right of claiming substitution under the Civil Code, and then construct the system of the right of claiming substitution by means of legal renewal. First of all, since scholars in comparative law have put forward quite many theories on the jurisprudential basis of the right of claiming substitution, I will introduce and analyze various jurisprudential bases of the right of claiming substitution in comparative law, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each theoretical doctrine and its adaptability to the Chinese law in the context of the existing civil law system in China, and select the right of claiming substitution suitable for the Chinese law on the premise of ensuring that it does not have an excessive impact on the existing legal system in China. I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each theoretical doctrine and its adaptability to our law, and select the jurisprudential basis of the right of claiming substitution that is suitable for our law, on the premise of ensuring that the existing legal system in China is not overly affected. Secondly, I will carry out the construction of the system of the right of claiming substitution in two steps. In the first step, I will search for the provisions of the Civil Code to build the legal basis of the right of claiming substitution. Specifically, I will first limit the available provisions to two: one is the relevant provisions of the unjust enrichment system, and the other is the relevant provisions of the debt non-performance system. After that, I examined the feasibility of constructing the right of claiming substitution based on the relevant provisions of the two systems and finally decided to use the relevant provisions of the debt default system as the basis for the legal renewal of the right of claiming substitution. In the second step, I analyze the constituent elements of the right of claiming substitution under the Civil Code and determine the meaning of each constituent element based on this article.In the third part of the paper, I will analyze the constructed right of claiming substitution with the existing system from the perspective of the legal application, and discuss the interface between the right of claiming substitution and the existing system of the Civil Code in the process of application. Specifically, I will discuss two types of systems in relation to the application of the right of claiming substitution, the first type is the system that may be applied due to "default" other than a breach of contract, and the second type is the system of liability for breach of contract other than the right of claiming substitution and the system related to liability for breach of contract. For the existing systems, I basically adopt the current theory of the academic community and discuss the interface between the systems and the right of claiming substitution based on this theory, in order to achieve the purpose of constructing the right of claiming substitution in harmony with the existing civil law system.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2023-06-09
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2023-05-27
回到顶部