论文部分内容阅读
自我国《担保法》实施后,有关保证期间的含义、法律性质及相关法律制度一直是学术讨论的热点。本文采用比较研究方法,通过借鉴德国、法国、瑞士等国有关保证期间相关问题的理论及立法,探讨我国的保证期间问题。本文从保证期间的含义入手,认为目前国内法律学者关于保证期间的界定都不能准确地反映出它的精髓。要确定保证期间的内涵,首先应当确定保证期间的法律性质。目前国内学者形成了有关保证期间法律性质的三种观点:诉讼时效说、除斥期间说和债权人的权利存续期间说。为了说明这三种学说是否合理,本文分析了诉讼时效期间、除斥期间和权利存续期间的含义及其各自的适用对象:诉讼时效期间一般适用于请求权,除斥期间适用于形成权,而权利存续期间则广泛地适用于各种债权、物权及其他民事权利类型。在保证合同中,债权人享有的权利性质是请求权,因此保证期间不应当是除斥期间;保证期间一般是由当事人约定的,不符合诉讼时效期间的性质。因此,保证期间只能是权利存续期间,而不是法律学者普遍认可的除斥期间或诉讼时效期间。其后,作者从比较法的角度,借鉴法国、德国、瑞士等国的立法支持了本文的这一观点。
Since the implementation of the “Guarantee Law” in our country, the meaning, legal nature and related legal system of the guarantee period have always been the hot topics in academic discussion. This article uses the comparative research method to explore the guarantee period of our country by referring to the theories and legislation about the related issues during the period of guarantee in Germany, France and Switzerland. This article starts with the meaning of the guarantee period, and thinks that the definition of the guarantee period by domestic legal scholars can not accurately reflect its essence. To determine the connotation of the guarantee period, we should first determine the legal nature of the guarantee period. At present, domestic scholars have formed three kinds of views on the nature of the law during the period of guarantee: the limitation of action states that during the period of repudiation and during the existence of the creditor's rights, the said period. In order to explain whether these three doctrines are reasonable, this paper analyzes the meanings of the periods of exclusivity, the period of exclusion and the duration of rights and their respective applicable objects: the period of limitation of action is generally applicable to the right of claim, the period of exclusion is applicable to the right of formation, and The duration of rights is broadly applicable to all types of claims, real rights and other types of civil rights. In the guarantee contract, the nature of the rights enjoyed by the creditor is the right of claim, so the guarantee period should not be the period of exclusion; the guarantee period is generally agreed upon by the parties and does not conform to the nature of the period of limitation. Therefore, the guarantee period can only be the duration of the right, not the law scholars generally dismissed during the period or limitation of action. Later, from the perspective of comparative law, the author borrows the legislation of France, Germany, Switzerland and other countries to support this view.