论债权人的撤销权

【作者】 陈庆；

【导师】 林刚；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 在国外，对债权人撤销权的研究比较成熟，德国、瑞士、日本和意大利等对撤销权的立法比较完善，理论研究比较深入。在国内，对债权人的撤销权，学者的研究相对较少，即使有一些学者进行了研究，也主要是对日本、德国、台湾等大陆法系国家和地区的相关制度进行介绍。近几年来，对该制度的研究有所深入，但基本上固守了传统的理论，使得撤销权这一债的保全制度在新的经济条件下和法律演进中没有适时进行相应的改革，在理论和实践中已暴露出一些局限性。如对撤销权确立的理论基础的研究比较少，司法实践中，债的保全制度中的代位权的行使突破了传统的“入库规则”，赋予行使代位权的债权人优先受偿权，那么在撤销权的行使中是否需要固守传统的“入库规则”，目前的通说认为，不应赋予行使撤销权的债权人优先受偿的权利，但缺乏有力的论证。不过这似乎也为行使撤销权突破传统的“入库规则”留下了一定的空间。本文力图对撤销权确立的理论基础，赋予行使撤销权的债权人优先受偿的权利等方面进行一些尝试性的研究，全文分为五个部分： 第一部分 债权人撤销权概述，简要说明撤销权的概念和特征，重点阐述撤销权的性质，并比较不同学说下行使撤销权的法律后果，介绍债权人撤销权的历史渊源和发展，债权人的撤销权源自罗马法，由罗马法务官保留斯创设，又称保罗诉权(亦有人译为保利安之诉)。在大陆法系国家，1804年的《法国民法典》首先继受了罗马法上的“废罢诉权”制度，设立了债权人的撤销权，后为大陆法系各国所效仿。 第二部分 债权人撤销权的法理辨析，从应然的角度深刻分析撤销权确立的价值取向、撤销权与诚实信用原则、禁止权利滥用原则等民法基本原则的关系；从实然的角度肯定我国建立撤销权制度的积极意义。 第三部分 债权人撤销权的成立要件，从客观要件和主观要件两个方面分析。在客观要件方面，债权人对债务人享有合法有效的债权，债务人实施了一定的处分财产的行为，债务人的行为有害债权人的债权，债务人的行为须于债权发生后发生法律效力；在主观要件方面，传统理论只在有偿行为中讨论主观要件，认为在无偿行为中无须探讨主观要件问题，笔者认为，这种理论在绝大多数情况下是成立的，但也有例外，如，债务人无偿赠与财产具有公益性质，如在抗洪抢险中赠与财产救灾，具有很明显的公更多还原

【Abstract】 The study of creditor’s right of revocation is quite mature abroad For example, Germany, Swiss, Japan, Italy and so on have done a perfect research on it, and have made a deep theoretical research. However, few have touched this research at home, even if some have done, they just give us an introduction of legal system concerned in Taiwan, Japan, Germany. In the last few years, this study has gone further, but basically it has stubbornly defended the traditional theory, and caused the right of revocation, the system of preservation on debt, not to carry on the corresponding reform in the new economic condition and the process of the legal evolution, which has exposed some limitations in theory and practice. For example, few have focused on the theoretical research of the establishment of the right of revocation. In the judicial practice, the right of subrogation in the system of preservation on debt breaks through the traditional" the rule of going into storage", and entrusts the creditor who carries on the right of subrogation with the priority of compensation. Then, the version on whether it need defend the traditional rule is that the creditor should not be entrusted with the right of compensation, but it lacks the powerful proof. Nevertheless, it seems to leave a certain space for the breakthrough of this traditional rule during carrying out the right of revocation. This paper tries to make a tentative analysis on the theoretical basis of the right of revocation, the priority of compensation entrusted to the creditor who carries out the right of revocation. It falls into five parts logically.The first part introduces the creditor’s right of revocation. It will cover the brief survey of the concept and character of the right of revocation, and emphasize on the quality of the right and make a comparison of the law consequence after carrying on the right of revocation with different versions. It also introduces the historical root and development of this right. It developed from the Law of Rome created by Paul, a Roman judge. It could be called the lawsuit of Paul, or the lawsuit of Paulius.The second part elaborates the identification of the legal principles of the creditor’s right of revocation. It will make a deep analysis on the relations of the basic principle of the civil law, such as, the value orientation of this right, its honest更多还原