【作者】 袁斌；

【导师】 张谷；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 民商法学， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 我国立法上对连带之债一直不够重视,对其的规定也散见于各个单行法,其实连带之债中所存在的问题颇多,本文拟讨论连带债务中对一人所生事项之效力的问题,即连带债务中对某一债务人所生的事项,是否会影响到其他债务人,能影响他债务人的事项称为绝对效力,不能影响的称为相对效力,此外在日本和我国台湾地区还规定了第三种效力——限制的绝对效力,即扣除发生事项的连带债务人的部分,其他连带债务人在剩下的部分中权利义务关系不变。此三种效力各有其理由,在针对不同事项时,不同效力的规定会产生截然相反的效果。作为对事项效力研究的前提,本文首先从连带债务历史的发展为线索,明确连带债务的性质,究竟为单一债之关系还是复数债之关系,这里涉及到单纯连带和共同连带的区别,在历史的发展过程中,尽管理由并不充分,但还是逐渐达成了连带债务应该是复数债之关系的共识,并舍弃了单纯连带和共同连带的划分。既然连带债务是复数债之关系,那么债权人与各个连带债务人都具有独立的权利义务关系,连带债务人之间本应泾渭分明,但是学说和实践都公认清偿和类清偿行为都能发生绝对效力,按照德国的主流学说,清偿和类清偿行为使得债发生了转移。那么其他对一人所生的事项,发生相对效力才是应有之意,然而债法修订以前的日本和我国台湾地区,均规定了大量了绝对效力事项,他们的立法理由是可以简化法律关系。笔者认为,在简化法律关系的同时,也应该考虑将这些事项从相对效力修改为绝对效力是否合理,笔者认为应有三个考量的基本点:连带债务的外部效力和内部效力必须截然区分;是否有损连带债务的担保效力;是否会变更原有的风险负担。恪守这三个考量基本点,本文就免除,抵销,混同,时效完成和请求等几个争议较大的事项着重进行分析。其中向部分债务人表示免除全部债务应采绝对效力,向部分债务人表示免除其所负担的债务,应通过解释债权人的真实意思,再来确定采相对效力还是绝对效力;抵销采相对效力,且不可抵销他人之债;混同采相对效力;时效完成和请求采相对效力。更多还原

【Abstract】 The China’s legislation has not paid enough attention to the joint and several debts,and its regulations are also scattered in the various single-line laws.In fact,there are many problems in the joint and several bonds.This paper intends to discuss the issue of the effect of the joint debt on the affairs of one person.That is,whether the matter arising from a debtor in a joint debt affects other debtors,the matter that can affect the debtor is called absolute effectiveness,and the non-influence is called relative effectiveness.In addition,in Japan and Taiwan,the Three kinds of effects-the absolute effect of the restriction,that is,the part of the joint debtor deducting the occurrence of the event,the other joint debtors have the same rights and obligations in the remaining part.Each of these three effects has its own reasons.When it comes to different matters,the different effectiveness rules will have the opposite effect.As a premise of the study of the effectiveness of the issue,this paper begins with the development of the history of joint debt as a clue,clarifying the nature of the joint debt,whether it is the relationship between single debt or plural debt,here is the difference between the simple joint and the joint,in history In the course of development,although the reasons were not sufficient,it gradually reached a consensus that the joint debt should be the relationship between the plural debts,and abandoned the division of the joint and the joint.Since the joint and several debts are the relationship of the plural debts,the creditors and the various joint debtors have independent rights and obligations,and the joint debtors should be clearly defined.However,both the doctrine and the practice are recognized that the liquidation and liquidation actions can be absolutely effective,according to Germany.The mainstream doctrine,the settlement and the class-liquidation behavior caused the debt to shift.Then,the relative effectiveness of other matters arising from one person is what it should be.However,Japan and Taiwan in the previous revision of the debt law have a large number of absolute effects.Their legislative reasons can simplify legal relations.The author believes that while simplifying the legal relationship,it should also consider whether it is reasonable to change these matters from relative effectiveness to absolute validity.The author believes that there should be three basic points of consideration:the external and internal effects of joint and several debts must be clearly distinguished;The effectiveness of the guarantee for damages and associated liabilities;whether the original risk burden will be changed.Adhering to these three considerations,this article focuses on analysis,exemptions,offsets,merging,aging completion and requests.Part of the debtor said that the exemption of all debts should be absolutely effective,and that some debtors should be excused from exempting the debts they are responsible for,and the relative validity of the creditors should be interpreted to determine whether they are relative or absolute.The offset is relatively effective and cannot be offset.Selling the debts of others;the absolute effect of the restrictions on the mining and mining;the completion of the time limit and the relative effectiveness of the request.更多还原