论保证期间法律适用困境与完善(硕士)(论文34000字)
内容摘要
我国的保证期间，是保证制度中的重要组成部分，如同“咽喉”，对保证人是否承担保证债务起着关键性作用，同时也是保证制度中最具争议的热点话题之一。由于我国保证期间制度的立法和理论研究存在冲突，所以其在司法实践中出现了诸多适用难题，鉴于此本文将重点分析保证期间计算、与诉讼时效关系的法适用困境，并找出“症结”，试图对其“疏通”，从而使保证期间制度流畅施行。
除引言和结语外，本文分为五个部分：
第一部分阐述保证期间法律适用的现状及困境。我国保证期间法律规范来源于《担保法》及《担保法》解释，其中担保法第15条虽规定当事人约定保证期间，但缺乏具体的法律规制，造成适用的困难，如对约定保证期间的起算点、区间的长短缺乏规制等；担保法第25、第26条，虽推定起算点为“主债务履行期届满之日起”但缺乏对预期违约下保证期间始期确定及造成保证期间“最后一日”为法定节假日是否能顺延的适用困境；担保法第25条与解释第33条，关于保证期间能否中断的规范冲突，能否反复中断、中断后的重新计算及与保证合同诉讼时效的衔接；以及在主合同未成立、无效、部分无效和破产程序中，保证期间计算。
第二部分通过比较大陆法系主要国家保证期间的立法体例（意思主义与法定主义），分析我国保证期间立法模式的特殊性——“有约从约，无约法定”对保证期间法适用困境带来的影响，旨在论证此模式下对当事人间意思自治原则的限制：重点针对当事人间就期间利益的预先放弃及排除适用期间的约定与法定保证期间制度规则的冲突和矛盾。
第三部分进一步分析我国保证期间法律适用困境产生的理论原因。通过对我国保证期间计算难以及与诉讼时效复杂关系的分析，困境源于理论实务界对“保证期间是什么”一直是雾里看花，尤其长期混同了“保证期间”“保证期限”“保证责任期限”，并将“保证债务”等同于“保证责任”的习惯惰性；对保证期间的性质争议更是各执一词、莫衷一是。
第四部分对保证期间定性为或有期间。通过对上述原因进一步研究得出，保证期间法律适用难的根源是保证期间定性不明。笔者主要从法律价值、法律效果两方面来证成保证期间是或有期间——即决定当事人能否取得或者能否行使相应权利的期间。
第五部分主要关于保证期间法律适用困境的完善建议。首先概括分析近年来理论界对保证期间法适用困境出路的设想，总结出“激进的本体批判派”“冒进的制度重构派”“温和的立法完善派”三种理论假设，并对前两种学说的不足进行批判论证；其次针对我国保证期间的法适用困境提出应当坚持沿用“有约从约无约法定”的立法模式——但以充分尊重当事人意志自由为前提；完善逾期违约下保证期间起算点适用难题并将法定起算点“主债务履行期届满之日起”推定为“债务不履行之日起”；最后建议借鉴我国台湾地区关于保证期间的规定，赋予保证人以催告权并确定催告期。
关键词：保证期间；适用困境；诉讼时效；或有期间； 立法完善
Abstract
The guarantee period of our country is an important part of the guarantee system, like "throat", it plays a key role in whether the guarantor undertakes the guarantee debt or not, and it is also one of the most controversial hot topics in the guarantee system.Because of the conflict between the legislation and the theoretical research of the guarantee period in our country, there are many difficulties in its application in the judicial practice.In view of this, this paper will focus on the analysis of the difficulties in the application of the law concerning the relationship between the period of guarantee and the limitation of action, and find out the crux of the problem, and try to "dredge" the guarantee period so as to make the guarantee period run smoothly.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts:
The first part describes the current situation and difficulties of the legal application of the guarantee period. The legal norms of the guarantee period in China are derived from the interpretation of the guarantee Law and the guarantee Law, in which Article 15 of the Guaranty Law provides for the period of warranty agreed by the parties. However, the lack of specific legal regulations makes it difficult to apply, such as the starting point of the contract guarantee period, the length of the interval and so on. Security Act, art. 25, art. 26. Although it is presumed that the starting point is "from the date of the expiry of the main debt performance period", it lacks the determination of the beginning period of the guarantee period under the expected breach of contract and the difficulty of applying whether the "last 1st" of the guarantee period can be extended as a statutory holiday; Section 25 of the Guaranty Act and interpretation No. 3 Article 3, about the normative conflict of whether the guarantee period can be interrupted, whether it can be interrupted repeatedly, the recalculation after the interruption and the connection with the statute of limitations of the guarantee contract; And in the case of failure, invalidity, partial invalidity and bankruptcy proceedings, the period of guarantee is calculated.
The second part analyzes the particularity of the legislative mode of the guarantee period of our country by comparing the legislative style of the main countries of the civil law system (meaning doctrine and statutory doctrine). In order to demonstrate the limitation of the principle of autonomy of will between the parties and to ignore the legal regulation of "exclusion by agreement", the effect of "no contract statutory" on the dilemma of the application of the law during the period of guarantee is discussed in this paper.
The third part further analyzes the theoretical reasons of the dilemma of the application of the law during the guarantee period of our country. Through the analysis of the difficult calculation of the guarantee period in China and the complex relationship between the guarantee period and the limitation of action. The dilemma stems from the theoretical and practical circles' confusion about what the guarantee period is, especially the long-term mixing of the "guarantee period", the "guarantee period" and the "guarantee liability period". And equate the "guarantee debt" with the customary inertia of the "duty of guarantee"; The nature of the guarantee period of controversy is different from each other.
Part 4th defines the guarantee period as contingent period. Through further research on the above reasons, it is concluded that the source of the difficulty in the application of the law during the guarantee period is the uncertainty of the guarantee period. The author mainly from the functional value. The legal effect proves that the warranty period is or is time-that is, the period during which the parties can obtain or exercise the corresponding rights.
The 5th part mainly about the guarantee period legal application difficult position consummate suggestion. First summarizes the analysis in recent years the theory circle to guarantee the period law application predicament way out assumption. This paper summarizes three theoretical hypotheses of "radical Noumenon critical School" and "rash Institutional Reconstruction School" and "mild Legislative perfection School", and criticizes the shortcomings of the former two theories. Secondly, aiming at the dilemma of the application of the law during the guarantee period in our country, the author puts forward that the legislative mode of "there is no agreement" should be adhered to-but with the premise of fully respecting the parties'
freedom of will; Improve the application of the starting point of the guarantee period under overdue default and put the statutory starting point "the main debt performance period" At last, it is suggested that the guarantor should be given the right of surety and determine the period of surety for reference from the stipulation of the guarantee period in Taiwan.
Key words:Guarantee period;Application predicament;Limitation of action;Contingent period;Legislative perfection
目录
内容摘要 1
引言 6
一、保证期间法律适用的现状与困境 7
（一）保证期间法律适用的现状 7
（二）保证期间计算的类型化 7
1.约定保证期间的计算 8
2.法定保证期间的计算 10
3.保证期间特殊情形下的计算 13
4.保证期间中断的质疑与计算 15
（三）保证期间与保证合同诉讼时效的衔接 16
（四）小结 17
二、保证期间法律适用困境的立法成因 18
（一）立法模式的特殊性 18
（二）立法模式限制了私法自治 19
三、保证期间法律适用困境的理论成因 20
（一）相关概念的混同 20
1.保证期间与保证期限 20
2．保证期间与保证责任期限 21
（二）法律性质的不确定 23
1．诉讼时效说之辨析 23
2.除斥期间说之质疑 24
3.独立期间说之反思 25
（三）小结 27
三、保证期间是“或有期间”的证成 27
（一）“或有期间”的释义 27
1.“或有期间”的概念 27
2.“或有期间”的正当性 28
（二）法律价值的二重性 29
1.从功能价值看 29
2.从法律规范看 30
（三）法律效果的间接性 31
（四）小结 33
四、保证期间法律适用困境的完善建议 33
（一）法适用困境出路的理论设想 33
1.“激进的本体批判派” 33
2.“冒进的制度重构派” 35
3.“温和的立法完善派” 36
（二）法适用困境完善的具体建议 37
1.坚持沿用“有约从约无约法定”——但以充分尊重当事人意志自由为前提 37
2.建议将法定保证期间的起算点定为“不履行债务之日” 38
3.建议赋予保证人以“催告权”并确定催告期 39
（三）小结 41
结语 43 |
