票据保证人抗辩权问题研究
摘要
票据抗辩是票据法体系中重要的组成部分,它有效地维护了票据债务人的利益,实现了票据法体系内在的平衡。票据保证人的抗辩权是票据抗辩中的特殊情况,与一般票据义务人的抗辩权不完全相同。本文采用分析、比较的方法,从票据抗辩的概念入手,借助票据法、票据保证行为之基本理论、民法、债权的相关理论,通过探讨票据保证的法律性质,以此确定票据保证人的抗辩权,并试图通过剖析实务中存在的常见问题,初步确立票据保证人的援用抗辩权,隐存保证人的抗辩权,以期使票据抗辩制度和票据保证制度体系更为完善、合理。
The safety and liquidity of instrument is the core legal value that the entire instrument law pursues, and the pleading of instrument is the crucial system for achieving this core value. As one of instrument behaviors, instrument guarantee is inevitable. It not only enriches the relationship between debts and credits, but also exhibits the new energy for the instrument guarantee system. Based on their consequence, and accompany with the development of market economy in our country, the comprehensively utilization of instrument’s liquidity, credibility, and financing function. The pleading of guarantees will be increasingly appearing in the legal affairs, and following by the new requirement of the legal system of instrument pleading right. Thus, it is necessary to pay more attention to the pleading right of instrument guarantees.
This article will begin with the concept of instrument pleading by using analytic and comparative methods, and by dint of the basic theory of instrument laws, instrument guarantee behaviors, and the correlative theory of civil law, creditor's right synchronously. Through discussing the law property of instrument guarantee, insuring instrument guarantor’s pleading right. This article will also process the anatomy of familiar problems. In order to make sure instrument pleading system and instrument guarantee system more consummate and rational, it will elementarily confirm instrument guarantor’s citing pleading right, and then keeping in guarantor’s pleading right. This article will divide into four parts:
The first part is regarding the occurring of the pleading right of instrument guarantee. There is a special relationship between debts and credits, which produces a particular right of instrument pleading. In addition, as one of the instrument behaviors, instruments guarantee has its unique legal preference. In order to provide the theoretical infrastructure for readers, this part will explorers the relationship of instrument relationship and instrument guarantee before the discussion of the pleading right. Firstly, research on the common rules of the instrument pleading. Instrument pleading is the mostly important portion of instrument legal system, which protects the instrument debtor’s interests effectively, and carries out the internal balance of instrument legal system. For the sake of tracking the whole impression of instrument pleading, this part briefly introduces the concept of instrument pleading and the reasons of instrument pleading. Secondly, discussion on the instrument guarantee’s legal property. By comparing the values orientation of civil law and commercial law, the author summarizes that the instrument guarantee possesses both independency and hypotaxis, but independency is more integrated in the system.
The second part is regarding the pleading right of instrument guarantor based on itself. This article starts from classifying traditional instrument debtor’s pleading right, Then subdivide two kinds: the one is all instrument debtors can claim to special instrument creditors, the other is special instrument debtors can claim to special instrument creditors in various situations, and discusses instrument guarantor’s pleading right. Approximately listing the instrument guarantors’pleading right qualification in various situations. At last, compared with the pleading right guarantor in civil law, concludes the utilization of the pleading right.
The third part is regarding the pleading right of instrument guarantor based on citing guarantee. The guarantor's citing right means that the guarantor is eligible to cite the pleading right of guarantee. In instrument legal theory, this right is not established. However, in the civil legal thoery, this right is admitted. By deeply studying the system, establish this rule in instrument law, not only for science of legal theory system is very necessary, but also defend instrument legitimate right and interests of litigants more forceful on actual judicial practice to perfect instrument. Through the analysis of instrument behaviors’independence and appurtenance attributes. In principle, ensure independence as the primary goal, and appurtenance as secondary goal. In conclusion, instrument guarantor is not able to cite guarantee’s based-on- person pleading right in the general situation. However, in some specific condition, instrument guarantor is eligible to cite guarantee’s based-on- person pleading right.
The fourth part is regarding pleading right problem of hiding guarantee. The instrument guarantee purpose lies in strengthening the reputation perse, however, actually the instrument guarantee items at instruments may expose the shortage of the instrument reputation, because a good reputation instrument do not usually require for guarantee. Therefore, the instrument debtor does not take pleasure in guarantor guarantying at instruments definitely. Hence, more debtors adopted the way of hiding guarantee to attain the purpose of guarantee. Hiding guarantee is a kind of particular instrument guarantee. This concept is theoretically put forward from the countries based on the Genevan instrument legal system. However, there is no rule in code. In fact the common form is the endorsement of hiding guarantee, and identifying the sequence of endorsement becomes the key of what effect of endorsement of hiding guarantee is. It mainly discusses the real-life problems of endorsement of hiding guarantee, the distinction of endorsement of hiding guarantee and endorsement of attornment, because there is no difference in appearance between endorsement of hiding guarantee and endorsement of attornment, the endorser of endorsement of hiding guarantee should charge the liability of endorser. Therefore, hiding guarantor can claim the pleading right of endorser only, which is based on the following reasons: the nonsequence of endorsement, malevolence, fatal blame.
In epilogue, due to“Instrument Law”in our country is constituted when business credit system in our country is comparatively unsubstantial,“Instrument Law”focus much more on protecting the security of instrument, and not pays much attention to the liquidity of instrument. Under such circumstance, the instrument guarantee system takes the attribute. Therefore, some aspects are prescribed comparatively rigorous and not much flexible. In order to ensure the instrument pleading system and instrument guarantee system to be more consummate and mature, instrument guarantor’s pleading right should be given more attention.
The safety and liquidity of instrument is the core legal value that the entire instrument law pursues, and the pleading of instrument is the crucial system for achieving this core value. As one of instrument behaviors, instrument guarantee is inevitable. It not only enriches the relationship between debts and credits, but also exhibits the new energy for the instrument guarantee system. Based on their consequence, and accompany with the development of market economy in our country, the comprehensively utilization of instrument’s liquidity, credibility, and financing function. The pleading of guarantees will be increasingly appearing in the legal affairs, and following by the new requirement of the legal system of instrument pleading right. Thus, it is necessary to pay more attention to the pleading right of instrument guarantees.
This article will begin with the concept of instrument pleading by using analytic and comparative methods, and by dint of the basic theory of instrument laws, instrument guarantee behaviors, and the correlative theory of civil law, creditor's right synchronously. Through discussing the law property of instrument guarantee, insuring instrument guarantor’s pleading right. This article will also process the anatomy of familiar problems. In order to make sure instrument pleading system and instrument guarantee system more consummate and rational, it will elementarily confirm instrument guarantor’s citing pleading right, and then keeping in guarantor’s pleading right. This article will divide into four parts:
The first part is regarding the occurring of the pleading right of instrument guarantee. There is a special relationship between debts and credits, which produces a particular right of instrument pleading. In addition, as one of the instrument behaviors, instruments guarantee has its unique legal preference. In order to provide the theoretical infrastructure for readers, this part will explorers the relationship of instrument relationship and instrument guarantee before the discussion of the pleading right. Firstly, research on the common rules of the instrument pleading. Instrument pleading is the mostly important portion of instrument legal system, which protects the instrument debtor’s interests effectively, and carries out the internal balance of instrument legal system. For the sake of tracking the whole impression of instrument pleading, this part briefly introduces the concept of instrument pleading and the reasons of instrument pleading. Secondly, discussion on the instrument guarantee’s legal property. By comparing the values orientation of civil law and commercial law, the author summarizes that the instrument guarantee possesses both independency and hypotaxis, but independency is more integrated in the system.
The second part is regarding the pleading right of instrument guarantor based on itself. This article starts from classifying traditional instrument debtor’s pleading right, Then subdivide two kinds: the one is all instrument debtors can claim to special instrument creditors, the other is special instrument debtors can claim to special instrument creditors in various situations, and discusses instrument guarantor’s pleading right. Approximately listing the instrument guarantors’pleading right qualification in various situations. At last, compared with the pleading right guarantor in civil law, concludes the utilization of the pleading right.
The third part is regarding the pleading right of instrument guarantor based on citing guarantee. The guarantor's citing right means that the guarantor is eligible to cite the pleading right of guarantee. In instrument legal theory, this right is not established. However, in the civil legal thoery, this right is admitted. By deeply studying the system, establish this rule in instrument law, not only for science of legal theory system is very necessary, but also defend instrument legitimate right and interests of litigants more forceful on actual judicial practice to perfect instrument. Through the analysis of instrument behaviors’independence and appurtenance attributes. In principle, ensure independence as the primary goal, and appurtenance as secondary goal. In conclusion, instrument guarantor is not able to cite guarantee’s based-on- person pleading right in the general situation. However, in some specific condition, instrument guarantor is eligible to cite guarantee’s based-on- person pleading right.
The fourth part is regarding pleading right problem of hiding guarantee. The instrument guarantee purpose lies in strengthening the reputation perse, however, actually the instrument guarantee items at instruments may expose the shortage of the instrument reputation, because a good reputation instrument do not usually require for guarantee. Therefore, the instrument debtor does not take pleasure in guarantor guarantying at instruments definitely. Hence, more debtors adopted the way of hiding guarantee to attain the purpose of guarantee. Hiding guarantee is a kind of particular instrument guarantee. This concept is theoretically put forward from the countries based on the Genevan instrument legal system. However, there is no rule in code. In fact the common form is the endorsement of hiding guarantee, and identifying the sequence of endorsement becomes the key of what effect of endorsement of hiding guarantee is. It mainly discusses the real-life problems of endorsement of hiding guarantee, the distinction of endorsement of hiding guarantee and endorsement of attornment, because there is no difference in appearance between endorsement of hiding guarantee and endorsement of attornment, the endorser of endorsement of hiding guarantee should charge the liability of endorser. Therefore, hiding guarantor can claim the pleading right of endorser only, which is based on the following reasons: the nonsequence of endorsement, malevolence, fatal blame.
In epilogue, due to“Instrument Law”in our country is constituted when business credit system in our country is comparatively unsubstantial,“Instrument Law”focus much more on protecting the security of instrument, and not pays much attention to the liquidity of instrument. Under such circumstance, the instrument guarantee system takes the attribute. Therefore, some aspects are prescribed comparatively rigorous and not much flexible. In order to ensure the instrument pleading system and instrument guarantee system to be more consummate and mature, instrument guarantor’s pleading right should be given more attention.
引文
[1] 郁锋、常风:《中外票据法选》,北京理工大学出版社 1991 年版, 第 224 页。
[2] 参见赵威:《票据权利研究》,法律出版社 1997 年版,第 148 页。
[3] 我国《票据法》第 10 条第 2 款规定:“票据的取得、必须给付对价, 即应当给付票据双方当事人认可的相对应的代价。”第 11 条第 1 款 规定:“因税收、健康、赠与可以依法取得票据的,不受给付对价的 限制。但是,所享有的票据权利不得优于其前手的权利。”第 12 条 规定:“以欺诈、偷盗或者胁迫等手段取得票据的,或者明知有前 列情形,出于恶意取将票据的,不得享有票据权利,持票人因重大 过失取得不符合本法规定的票据的,也不得享有票据权利。”
[4] 在我国《票据法》第 10 条将对价解释为“双方当事人许可的相对应 的代价。”
[5] 所谓融通票据,一般是指一方为另一方无偿开立的,直接承担到期 付款责任的可转让流通的有价证券。它一般不反映真实的交易关系, 而多由资信较高的一方为另一方开具,以取得融通资金。
[6] 谢怀轼:《票据法概论》,法律出版社 1990 年版,第 146 页。
[7] 参见王小能主编:《中国票据法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 11 月第 1 版,第 271 页。
[8] 孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 27 页。
[9] 转引自王小能:《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版,第 33 页。
[10]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 6 条。
[11]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 5 条第 2 款。
[12]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 14 条第 2 款。
[13]转引自孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 28-29 页。
[14]转引自孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 29 页。
[15]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 46 条。
[16]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 48 条。
[17]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 50 条。
[18]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 52 条。
[19]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 236 页。
[20]王小能:《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版, 第 101 页。
[21]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 191 页。
[22]参见赵新华:《论票据保证及其效力》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》 1996 年第 4 期,第 65 页。
[23]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 193 页。
[24]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 193 页。
[25]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 194
[26]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 194 页。
[27]参见我国台湾地区最高法院 2004 年台简上第五号判決。
[28]王小能编著:《票据法教程》,北京大学出版社 2001 年版,第 233-234 页。
[29]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 37 条。
[30]王小能:《论票据背书的连续性》,《中国法学》1999 年第 1 期, 第 83 页。
1. 赵新华:《票据法论》,吉林大学出版社 2007 年版。
2. 强力主编:《票据法前沿问题案例研究》,中国经济出版杜 2001 年版。
3. 于永芹:《票据法前沿问题研究》,北京大学出版社 2003 年版。
4. 施文森:《票据法论—兼析联合国国际票据公约》,三民书局 2005 年 版。
5. 张民安:《票据法案例与评析》,中山大学出版社 2006 年版。
6. 王小能编著 :《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版。
7. 赵新华:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版。
8. 刘甲一:《票据法新论》,台湾五南图书出版公司 1978 年版。
9. 赵威:《票据权利研究》,法律出版社 1997 年版。
10.王小能主编:《中国票据法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社 1999 年版。
11.魏振瀛主编:《民法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社 2000 年版。
12.范健主编:《商法》(第二版),北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社 2002 年版。
13.郁锋、常风:《中外票据法选》,北京理工大学出版社 1991 年版。
14.谢怀轼:《票据法概论》,法律出版社 1990 年版。
15.梁宇贤:《票据法论》,台湾五南图书出版公司 1985 年第 1 版。
16.杨建华:《票据法要论》,台湾汉林出版社 1979 年第 1 版。
17.张龙文:《票据法实务研究》,台湾汉林出版社 1976 年第 1 版。
1. 殷成洁 :《论票据保证的特征与效力》,《连云港职业技术学院学报》 第 19 卷第 1 期,2006 年 3 月。
2. 高军东:《论票据保证人的援用抗辩权》,《河南机电高等专科学校学 报》第 12 卷第 6 期,2004 年 11 月。
3. 山文岑:《论票据保证人的抗辩权》,《曲靖师范学院学报》第 23 卷 第 2 期,2004 年 3 月。
4. 杨秋华:《票据保证若干问题研究》,《河北法学》2000 年第 1 期。
5. 孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期。
6. 赵新华:《论票据保证及其效力》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》1996 年 第 4 期。
7. 谢石松:《论票据的保证》,《法学评论》1996 年第 4 期。
8. 马向红:《论票据的抗辩权》,《当代法学》1999 年第 3 期。
9. 董惠江:《票据抗辩的分类》,《法学研究》2004 年第 1 期。
10.曹艳春:《票据抗辩的法律探讨》,《哈尔滨商业大学学报(社会科学 版)》2002 年第 4 期。
11.张燕强:《我国票据背书连续认定规则的完善》,《法学》2006 年第 10 期。
12.王小能:《论票据背书的连续性》,《中国法学》1999 年第 1 期。
13.刘为民:《论票据当事人》,《社会纵横》2003 年第 4 期。
[2] 参见赵威:《票据权利研究》,法律出版社 1997 年版,第 148 页。
[3] 我国《票据法》第 10 条第 2 款规定:“票据的取得、必须给付对价, 即应当给付票据双方当事人认可的相对应的代价。”第 11 条第 1 款 规定:“因税收、健康、赠与可以依法取得票据的,不受给付对价的 限制。但是,所享有的票据权利不得优于其前手的权利。”第 12 条 规定:“以欺诈、偷盗或者胁迫等手段取得票据的,或者明知有前 列情形,出于恶意取将票据的,不得享有票据权利,持票人因重大 过失取得不符合本法规定的票据的,也不得享有票据权利。”
[4] 在我国《票据法》第 10 条将对价解释为“双方当事人许可的相对应 的代价。”
[5] 所谓融通票据,一般是指一方为另一方无偿开立的,直接承担到期 付款责任的可转让流通的有价证券。它一般不反映真实的交易关系, 而多由资信较高的一方为另一方开具,以取得融通资金。
[6] 谢怀轼:《票据法概论》,法律出版社 1990 年版,第 146 页。
[7] 参见王小能主编:《中国票据法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 11 月第 1 版,第 271 页。
[8] 孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 27 页。
[9] 转引自王小能:《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版,第 33 页。
[10]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 6 条。
[11]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 5 条第 2 款。
[12]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》第 14 条第 2 款。
[13]转引自孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 28-29 页。
[14]转引自孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期,第 29 页。
[15]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 46 条。
[16]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 48 条。
[17]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 50 条。
[18]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 52 条。
[19]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 236 页。
[20]王小能:《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版, 第 101 页。
[21]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 191 页。
[22]参见赵新华:《论票据保证及其效力》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》 1996 年第 4 期,第 65 页。
[23]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 193 页。
[24]转引自赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版, 第 193 页。
[25]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 194
[26]赵新华主编:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版,第 194 页。
[27]参见我国台湾地区最高法院 2004 年台简上第五号判決。
[28]王小能编著:《票据法教程》,北京大学出版社 2001 年版,第 233-234 页。
[29]参见《中华人民共和国票据法》,第 37 条。
[30]王小能:《论票据背书的连续性》,《中国法学》1999 年第 1 期, 第 83 页。
1. 赵新华:《票据法论》,吉林大学出版社 2007 年版。
2. 强力主编:《票据法前沿问题案例研究》,中国经济出版杜 2001 年版。
3. 于永芹:《票据法前沿问题研究》,北京大学出版社 2003 年版。
4. 施文森:《票据法论—兼析联合国国际票据公约》,三民书局 2005 年 版。
5. 张民安:《票据法案例与评析》,中山大学出版社 2006 年版。
6. 王小能编著 :《票据法教程》(第二版),北京大学出版社 2006 年版。
7. 赵新华:《票据法问题研究》,法律出版社 2007 年版。
8. 刘甲一:《票据法新论》,台湾五南图书出版公司 1978 年版。
9. 赵威:《票据权利研究》,法律出版社 1997 年版。
10.王小能主编:《中国票据法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社 1999 年版。
11.魏振瀛主编:《民法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社 2000 年版。
12.范健主编:《商法》(第二版),北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社 2002 年版。
13.郁锋、常风:《中外票据法选》,北京理工大学出版社 1991 年版。
14.谢怀轼:《票据法概论》,法律出版社 1990 年版。
15.梁宇贤:《票据法论》,台湾五南图书出版公司 1985 年第 1 版。
16.杨建华:《票据法要论》,台湾汉林出版社 1979 年第 1 版。
17.张龙文:《票据法实务研究》,台湾汉林出版社 1976 年第 1 版。
1. 殷成洁 :《论票据保证的特征与效力》,《连云港职业技术学院学报》 第 19 卷第 1 期,2006 年 3 月。
2. 高军东:《论票据保证人的援用抗辩权》,《河南机电高等专科学校学 报》第 12 卷第 6 期,2004 年 11 月。
3. 山文岑:《论票据保证人的抗辩权》,《曲靖师范学院学报》第 23 卷 第 2 期,2004 年 3 月。
4. 杨秋华:《票据保证若干问题研究》,《河北法学》2000 年第 1 期。
5. 孙卫国:《票据保证的从属性与独立性》,《当代法学》2000 年第 5 期。
6. 赵新华:《论票据保证及其效力》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》1996 年 第 4 期。
7. 谢石松:《论票据的保证》,《法学评论》1996 年第 4 期。
8. 马向红:《论票据的抗辩权》,《当代法学》1999 年第 3 期。
9. 董惠江:《票据抗辩的分类》,《法学研究》2004 年第 1 期。
10.曹艳春:《票据抗辩的法律探讨》,《哈尔滨商业大学学报(社会科学 版)》2002 年第 4 期。
11.张燕强:《我国票据背书连续认定规则的完善》,《法学》2006 年第 10 期。
12.王小能:《论票据背书的连续性》,《中国法学》1999 年第 1 期。
13.刘为民:《论票据当事人》,《社会纵横》2003 年第 4 期。