保证人放弃主债时效抗辩时能否行使追偿权辨析

法律论文编号:FM006    包括:开题报告,中英文摘要,论文,目录,文献综述,任务书,答辩,中期检查表,等  论文字数:13694,页数:19

目  录
摘要................................................................II
Abstract ..........................................................III
引言 ................................................................1
一、保证人追偿权发生的基础 ..........................................2
（一）保证人追偿权的概念与性质 ......................................2
（二）保证人追偿权的发生基础.........................................2
二、现行法下保证人追偿权行使的困境...................................3
（一）保证人追偿权法律制度在司法实践中所产生的问题与学者见解........ 3
1.肯定说.............................................................3
2.否定说.............................................................5
（二）问题产生的原因与解决途径.......................................6
1.问题产生的原因分析.................................................6
2.问题的解决思路与理由分析...........................................8
三、保证人追偿权制度的重构与问题的解决 .............................10
（一）保证人追偿权的行使与其通知义务的履行..........................10
（二）问题的解决 ...................................................11
1.当保证人与主债务人之间为委托法律关系的情况........................12
2.当保证人与主债务人之间为无因管理关系的情况....................... 12
3.当保证人与主债务人之间为赠与关系的情况............................13
结语................................................................14
参考文献............................................................15
致谢................................................................16

摘要
保证合同为单务合同，保证人只对债权人负担保证债务和承担保证责任，而不对债权人享有任何实体上之权利，这明显对保证人不利，但保证人仍然愿意为主债务人提供 保证担保，显然，保证人与主债务人之间存在着某种保证原因关系，基于此种关系，保证人才愿意为主债务人提供保证担保。而保证人之所以愿意为主债务人提供保证担保，要么是出于主债务人的委托，要么是保证人未经主债务人的委托而主动为主债务人的债务提供保证担保，要么是保证人出于赠与意思而为主债务人的债务提供保证担保。因此要解决保证人在放弃主债务时效抗辩时能否向主债务人行使追偿权的问题就应该从这三种保证原因关系入手。
文章采用比较分析的方法。首先分析指出我国担保法对保证人追偿权发生基础所采取的立法例，进而分析指出我国采取此种立法例是保证人放弃主债务时效抗辩时能否行使追偿权这个问题难以得到公平合理解决的原因。针对这个原因并在比较总结、借鉴我国学者对此问题的解决经验，进一步分析指出要公平合理地解决保证人追偿权的问题，应该借鉴日本立法例从保证原因关系入手。文章接着论证我国采取此种立法例的理论与实践意义，在此基础之上，文章从保证原因关系入手并结合保证人与主债务人之间的互负通知义务的履行情况，再对保证人放弃主债时效抗辩能否行使追偿权进行具体分析与解答。

关键词：保证原因    保证人追偿权    通知义务

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