保證人放棄主債時效抗辯時能否行使追償權辨析

法律論文編號:FM006    包括:開題報告,中英文摘要,論文,目錄,文獻綜述,任務書,答辯,中期檢查表,等  論文字數:13694,頁數:19

目  錄
摘要................................................................II
Abstract ..........................................................III
引言 ................................................................1
一、保證人追償權發生的基礎 ..........................................2
（一）保證人追償權的概念與性質 ......................................2
（二）保證人追償權的發生基礎.........................................2
二、現行法下保證人追償權行使的困境...................................3
（一）保證人追償權法律制度在司法實踐中所產生的問題與學者見解........ 3
1.肯定說.............................................................3
2.否定說.............................................................5
（二）問題產生的原因與解決途徑.......................................6
1.問題產生的原因分析.................................................6
2.問題的解決思路與理由分析...........................................8
三、保證人追償權制度的重構與問題的解決 .............................10
（一）保證人追償權的行使與其通知義務的履行..........................10
（二）問題的解決 ...................................................11
1.當保證人與主債務人之間為委托法律關系的情況........................12
2.當保證人與主債務人之間為無因管理關系的情況....................... 12
3.當保證人與主債務人之間為贈與關系的情況............................13
結語................................................................14
參考文獻............................................................15
致謝................................................................16

摘要
保證合同為單務合同，保證人只對債權人負擔保證債務和承擔保證責任，而不對債權人享有任何實體上之權利，這明顯對保證人不利，但保證人仍然愿意為主債務人提供 保證擔保，顯然，保證人與主債務人之間存在著某種保證原因關系，基于此種關系，保證人才愿意為主債務人提供保證擔保。而保證人之所以愿意為主債務人提供保證擔保，要么是出于主債務人的委托，要么是保證人未經主債務人的委托而主動為主債務人的債務提供保證擔保，要么是保證人出于贈與意思而為主債務人的債務提供保證擔保。因此要解決保證人在放棄主債務時效抗辯時能否向主債務人行使追償權的問題就應該從這三種保證原因關系入手。
文章采用比較分析的方法。首先分析指出我國擔保法對保證人追償權發生基礎所采取的立法例，進而分析指出我國采取此種立法例是保證人放棄主債務時效抗辯時能否行使追償權這個問題難以得到公平合理解決的原因。針對這個原因并在比較總結、借鑒我國學者對此問題的解決經驗，進一步分析指出要公平合理地解決保證人追償權的問題，應該借鑒日本立法例從保證原因關系入手。文章接著論證我國采取此種立法例的理論與實踐意義，在此基礎之上，文章從保證原因關系入手并結合保證人與主債務人之間的互負通知義務的履行情況，再對保證人放棄主債時效抗辯能否行使追償權進行具體分析與解答。

關鍵詞：保證原因    保證人追償權    通知義務

Abstract
Guaranty contract is a unilateral contract, so guarantor just redeem the guaranty obligation and assume the guaranty liability, but not enjoy any benefits from creditor. Obviously, it’s unfavorable to the guarantor. However, the guarantor is still willing to  provide security of guaranty for the debtor. It’s clear that there is a certain legal relationship between them.Owing to that relationship, the guarantor provides the guaranty for the debtor.
The reason that the guarantor is willing to provide guaranty for the debtor is either out of the debtor’s commission, or is out of guarantor’s voluntary service ,or is out of the guarantor’s meaning of gift. So, how to solve the problem that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery.We should distinguish and analyze the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor.The paper adopts       comparatively analytical method. Firstly, the paper points out what legislation example on the basis of guarantor’s right of recovery adopted by China’ legislative branch. Then the analysis points out what the legislation example we have adopted is the reason why the issue is difficult to be resolved fairly and reasonable. For this reason and in the comparative summary of the scholars’ experience in resolving the issue in China. Further analysis points out that we should learn from Japanese lawmaking example which resolves the issue in the light of the legal relationship between guarantor and debtor. Then the paper continues to expound and prove this kind of regular legislation theory and practice of significance that our country should adopt in the future. At this foundation on，the paper try to solve the issue that to abandon debtor’s limitation right of pleadings, whether guarantor can exercise the right of recovery with analysis on the notice obligation are redeemed by the debtor and guarantor.
Key words: The Reason for Guaranty; Guarantor’s Right of Recovery; Notification Obligations