硕士学位论文：论通知对债权让与效力的影响.doc

1、1硕士学位论文（20 届）论通知对债权让与效力的影响姓 名学 科 、 专 业 民 商 法 学 （ 全 日 制 法 律 硕 士 ）研 究 方 向 民 法指 导 教 师论文提交日期2论通知对债权让与效力的影响（硕士论文摘要）债权让与是现代民商法的一项基本制度，其标的既可能是指名债权，也可能是指示债权或无记名债权。本文以指名债权普通民法债权的全部让与作为研究对象，以逻辑分析为主轴，以社会学分析、文义分析等法律解释方法为辅助，系统地论证了通知作为普通民法债权生效要件的必然、对抗要件的可行，以及通知在让与人、受让人、债务人、第三人等诸关系中作为保护债务人利益、平衡第三人利益的作用，并最终建构起“形式移转

2、债权”理论。全文由引言、正文和结语三个部分组成。引言交待了选题的意义、研究的范围以及研究的方法，结语对全文进行了总结，并对权利变动模式的统一提出了构想。正文共分三章。第一章主要论述债权让与的生效问题。在对三种典型的“物权变动模式”和“债权变动模式”进行考察和比较的过程中，笔者发现各国在债权让与问题上由于对债权让与合同和债权让与不加区分、对通知的公信力和促进债权流通的信心不足等原因都抛弃了债权移转的形式要求，转而采用“合意移转债权”模式。但“合意移转债权”模式却因不符债的本质、有违法律逻辑和社会情理而先天不足。事实上，判断权利是否移转的标准应是何种法律事实发生后受让人能够支配权利，或者说受让人从

3、此享有权利。在债权让与制度中，这种法律事实无疑是通知，而通知在性质上则是准法律行为，应准用意思表示的规定。第二章主要论述通知对债务人利益保护问题。通过对自由主义和通知主义两种立法例进行考察和分析，笔者评判了以“知悉”作为债权移转实际生效要件立法例的弊端，论证了以通知作为债权移转生效要件对债务人利益保护的必然性。在此基础上，笔者认为，为保护债务人的利益，应严格适用公告通知、有条件的适用诉讼告知；无论让与人还是受让人为错误通知，都应发生表见让与的效力，而不论债务人善意、恶意与否。第三章主要论述通知对第三人利益平衡问题。因债权让与合同生效并不等于债权让与生效，故在债权让与生效之前，债权有被再次出让的

4、可能性，由此产生了债权多重让与中的优先权问题。笔者在考察分析了债权多重让与中的时间优先规则、通知优先规则和登记优先规则之后，认为在对第三人利益的平衡3问题上，登记优先规则最具优势，通知优先规则次之，时间优先规则最次。但在普通民法债权让与上，登记优先规则在现阶段却存在交易成本高昂、社会认同度低等弊端， 故不宜采用。而通知优先规则虽然在对抗第三人问题上的效果不如登记优先规则，但却优于时间优先规则，故应为我国现阶段立法所采。关键词 债权让与 通知 效力4Study On The Validity Of NotificationTo Assignment Of Credit(Abstract)Assi

5、gnment of credit is a basic legal system in modern Civil and Commercial Law. Its sign is the subject of claims, which may be named, or may be indicative or bearer debt claims. In this paper, named claims are the core of the research. The author takes logic analysis as the main axle, legal explanatio

6、n, sociological analysis, and meaning analysis as methods to do the research. Firstly, the author systematically demonstrates that notification is necessity for the effectiveness of assignment of credit and the feasibility for the resistance requirement. Then the author discusses the function of not

7、ification in protecting the interest of the debtor and balancing the interest of the third party among the assignor, the assignee, the debtor, and a third party. And eventually, the theory of “ The formalism of assignment of credit “ is built.The full text is composed of the foreword, the body and t

8、he epilogue. The foreword explains the significance of the topic, the scope of the study, and research methods. The epilogue has carried on the summary to the full text, and proposed the conception to the pattern of assignment of credit.The main text is divided into three chapters.Chapter One mainly

9、 discusses the effectiveness of assignment of credit. By inspecting and comparing three typical legal mode of the shift of jus in rem and legal mode of the alteration of credit, the author finds out that many countries have not made a difference between assignment of credit and assignment of contrac

10、t and have abandoned the creditors rights shifting form request as a result of 5lack of confidence in notification. Eventually, most countries adopt the legal mode of credit transfer by agreement. But the mode is inconsistent with the nature of debt, in violation of legal logic and social sense. In

11、fact, the standard of judgment of the transfer of rights is the disposal of the rights of the assignee when some legal facts occur. In the legal system of assignment of credit, the legal facts must be notification undoubtedly. And notification in nature is quasi legal act, which should be stipulated

12、 by expression of the meanings.Chapter Two mainly discusses the function of notification on protection of the interests of the debtor. Through inspection and analysis on the legislative mode of the liberalism and the notification doctrine, the author points out the drawbacks that “knows“ should be a

13、 requirement as the transfer of the credits entry into force. Then the author proves the inevitability of notification to be a requirement as the transfer of the credits entry into force to protect debtors interests. Based on this, the author believes that for the protection of the interests of the

14、debtor, announcement notification should be strictly applied and lawsuit notification conditionally. Whether the assignor or the assignee for the error notification, the same effectiveness would come, regardless of the debtor in good faith or malicious.Chapter Three mainly discusses the function of

15、notification on balancing the interests of the third party. As we know that the effectiveness of assignment of contract does not mean the effectiveness of assignment of credit. So, before the assignment of credit becomes effective, the credit may possibly be transferred once more; and the question o

16、f priority of multi- assignment arises. By inspection and analysis on the rule of time first, the rule of 6notification first and the rule of registration first in multi- assignment, the author claims that, to balance the interests of the third party, the rule of registration first is best and the r

17、ule of notification first is second and the rule of time first worst. But, for assignment of common civil credit, the rule of registration first has its defects in high transaction costs and its social recognition is low, so it is not a good choice. The best choice is the rule of notification first

18、and it should be adopted by legislation of our country in present stage.Key Words Assignment of credit, Notification, Validity 7目 录导言1一、 问题的提出1二、 研究的范围1 三、 研究的方法2第一章 债权让与的生效2第一节 比较法考察2一、 物权形式主义物权变动模式下的债权让与3二、 债权意思主义物权变动模式下的债权让与4 三、 债权形式主义物权变动模式下的债权让与5第二节 合意生效和形式生效6一、合意生效的缺陷分析7二、合同生效和让与生效8三、合意生效和通知生效

19、9第三节 通知性质和让与生效10一、有关让与通知性质的学说108二、让与通知性质学说的评价12小结13第二章 通知和债务人利益的保护13第一节 让与对债务人生效的 “形式” 14一、 自由主义和通知主义的区别14二、 两种主义的评析15 第二节 通知的形式和债务人利益的保护16一、公告是否有效通知17二、诉讼可否代替通知18第三节 表见让与和债务人利益的保护20一、受让人通知和表见让与20二、债权人善意和表见让与23小结24第三章 通知和第三人利益的平衡25第一节 让与对第三人对抗的 “形式” 259一、 时间优先规则25二、 通知优先规则25 二、 登记优先规则27 第二节 三种规则的评析2

20、8一、时间优先规则评析28二、通知优先规则评析30三、登记优先规则评析31小结31结语3210论通知对债权让与效力的影响导言一、问题的提出债权让与制度是近现代民法的一项基本制度，其是债权移转的下位概念，而债权移转是债的变更的下位概念。债的变更包括债的主体变更、客体变更和内容变更。债的主体变更又包括债权移转、债务承担和债权债务的概括移转。债权移转之发生根据有依法律行为者，有依法律规定者，还有依国家行为者。 1其中依法律行为移转债权者，包括依单方法律行为移转债权和依双方法律行为移转债权。依双方法律行为移转债权者被称为债权让与，即债权让与是指在保持债权同一性的前提下让与人与受让人通过双方法律行为合同

21、行为将债权移转给受让人的行为。我国合同法主要效仿欧陆各国立法例对债权让与制度进行的规定。但遗憾的是，囿于客观环境与主观认识的原因，仍存在较多疏漏之处。如对债权让与合同的生效时间、债权移转至受让人的时间、债权可否多重让与及多重让与债权时各受让人的顺位关系、让与通知的性质和形式等均未作规定。这种立法状况远远不能满足解决债权让与问题的实践需要。鉴于债权让与制度在现代经济社会中的重要作用及我国学说对债权让与制度的研究有待深化、立法上亟待完善的状况，笔者选取债权让与制度的核心让与通知和让与效力的关系问题作为本文的研究对象。债权让与制度围绕让与合同展开，而让与效力的解决则有赖于对权利变动模式的选择。可以说解决了债权让与的权利变动模式问题，债权让与制度的所有问题都会迎刃而解。基此，本文以权利变动模式入手，探讨让与通知对债权让与效力的影响等问题。二、研究的范围债权依据表示债权人方法的不同和转让方式的不同，可以分为指名债权、指示债权和无记名债权三种。指示债权和无记名债权属于证券化的债权，证券1 参见史尚宽著：债法总论 ，中国政法大学出版社 2000 年版，第 703 页。