票据丧失救济制度研究

【作者】 刘晓春；

【导师】 程宝山；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 票据作为设权证券和提示证券，丧失票据就丧失了行使票据权利的凭证，各国法律均规定有票据丧失救济制度。一般情况下，大陆法系国家和地区采公示催告制度，英美法系国家采普通诉讼制度，有的还兼采挂失止付制度，我国吸收两大法系的作法，挂失止付、公示催告和普通诉讼共同构成了我国的票据丧失救济制度。 由于票据法独特的技术规则，与民商法的一般理论存在较大差异，加上法规本身的抽象性，失票救济领域存在较多争议问题和模糊规定。民事诉讼法以列举方式界定票据丧失，即不够全面，也难以明确丧失的构成要件；人民银行规定，商业银行同系统的其他分支机构为未记载代理付款人的银行汇票的代理付款人，造成公示催告的止付通知不能送达“代理付款人”；空白票据丧失可否申请挂失止付和公示催告，存在可否两种观点；超过票据时效的票据丧失，可否按照票据丧失的方式进行救济，尚需进一步明确；除权判决后与普通诉讼判决后，失票人可否行使追索权，理论界也存在肯定和否定两种观点。上述争议和模糊规定的存在，给一些利害关系人造成不应有的损害，也给法律的适用带来一定困难，最高人民法院应在审判实践中通过“判例”的形式予以指导、统一，对有必要进一步明确的问题应通过司法解释进行明确，人民银行应对银行汇票的代理付款人定义重新界定。 我国现行法律也存在一些有必要修改的不足之处。公示催告期间转让票据的行为无效(实行公示催告救济制度的国家均没有如此规定)，过于保护失票人的利益，而忽视了对善意第三人利益的保护；公示催告公告的周知性和影响力有限，造成持票人不能及时申报权利票据被除权；公示催告期间偏短，且没有考虑不同票据期限的长短，不能消除除权判决后对善意受让人缺乏保护的缺陷，造成善意受让人受让已除权票据的风险；票据救济主体的范围偏小，付款人、出票人等合法持有人的票据丧失不能依照票据法规定的方式进行救济；公示催告除权判决撤销制度不够完善，当法院不遵守法定的公告方式、公告期间等处理公示催告案件，影响利害关系人的利益时，利害关系人难以进行维权；缺失票据到期提存制度，在除权判决前或普通诉讼程序进行中，票据已到期的，失票人和法院缺乏提存票款的依据，票款处于不确定的状态，可能影响失票人的权利安全;由于申请挂失止付和公示催告没有保证金制度的约束等多种因素的影响，伪报票据丧失申请公示催告和挂失止付泛滥，扰乱票据流通秩序。对法律存在的上述不足和问题，有必要修改相关法律进行完善，笔者在本文中提出了修改的建议:删除公示催告期间转让票据无效的规定，公示催告期间至少应公告至提示付款期限届满;扩展票据救济的主体，将付款人和出票人等义务主体包含;完善除权判决的撤销程序，加强对利害关系人的权利保护;建立票据到期提存制度，更好地保障失票人的权益;申请公示催告和挂失止付交纳保证金，防范伪报票据丧失的泛滥。更多还原

【Abstract】 Losing a negotiable instrument means losing a warrant to exercise the rights on a negotiable instrument as a security with imbedded options and a presentment security. So there is system of loss of a negotiable instrument in the law system in different countries. Generally speaking, the countries and regions of the civil law system adopt the system of public summons for exhortation, while the countries of common law system adopt the system of taking proceedings. And some other countries adopt the system of reporting the loss of bills and stopping the payment besides the two main systems. Our country assimilates the practice of the countries in the two main law systems. The system of reporting the loss of bills and stopping the payment, the system of public summons for exhortation and the system of taking proceedings all together constitute the system of loss of a negotiable instrument and remedies in our country.The law on negotiable instruments differs greatly from the civil and commercial law in the general theory because of its particular technical rules. In addition, the law itself is very abstract. So there are so many controversies and inaccurate prescriptions in the field of loss of a negotiable instrument and remedies. Civil procedure law of the People’s Republic of China defines the loss of a negotiable instrument by means of numeration, which is neither complete nor necessary to the loss of a negotiable instrument; The People’s Bank of China once ordains that other branches of the commercial banks in the same system are surrogate drawee of the banker’s draft without the record of the surrogate drawee, as a result, the stopping payment inform of public summons for exhortation can’t reach the surrogate drawee; There is controversy about whether the blank negotiable instruments can be applied for reporting the loss of bills and stopping the payment and public summons for exhortation. Whether the loss of a negotiable instrument beyond the prescription of negotiable instruments could be remedied in the way of loss of a negotiable instrument still need further clarification; There is also controversy about whether theloser could exercise the right of recourse after the invalidating judgement and taking proceedings judgement. The above controversies and inaccurate prescriptions cause unnecessary damage to some interested party and some difficulties of the application of the law. The supreme people’s court should supervise and standardize these issues in the form of precedent in the practice of ad judgement and should clarify the issues through judicial interpretation which need further clarification.There are some deficiencies in our present law that needs amendment. According to the Civil procedure law of the People’s Republic of China, the transferee of the transferred negotiable instruments shall not enjoy the rights arising out of the instruments transferred during the period of public summons for exhortation even if the negotiable instrument is transferred legally before the public summons for exhortation. If the holder of the negotiable instrument doesn’t declare rights before the invalidating judgement, the negotiable instrument will be invalidated. Therefore, this adds precautionary burden of the well-meaning transferees and legal holders. These illegitimate issues mainly result from the three illogical provisions: The transfer of the negotiable instrument during the period of public summons for exhortation is null and void (none of the countries that implement the system of public summons for exhortation and remedies has such provision); The period of public summons for exhortation is relatively short and the maturity of the negotiable instrument isn’t taken into account, so this can’t eliminate the defect for lack of protection for the well-meaning transferees after the invalidating judgement cause the risk of the well-meaning transferring the invalidated negotiable instruments; The publicity and influence of the notice for the public summons for exhortation is limited. The range of the object更多还原