论文部分内容阅读
一、引论:我国债权人代位权的变化我国《合同法》第73条规定:“因债务人怠于行使其债权,对债权人造成损害的,债权人可以向人民法院请求以自己的名义代位行使债务人的债权,但该债权专属于债务人自身的除外。代位权的行使范围以债权人的债权为限。债权人行使代位权的费用,由债务人负担。”该条规定首次在我国设立了代位权制度,我国民事诉讼由此增添了一种新的诉讼类型——债权人代位诉讼。根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(一)》(以下简称《合同法解释》)的有关规定,我国的代位权与传统的代位权理论在代位权的适用范围、客体范围、行使方式及效力等方面均存有较大的差异,而在上述差异中,《合同法解释》第20条对代位权效力的改变无疑是最为引人瞩目的。
I. Introduction: Changes in the Subrogation of Creditors in China Article 73 of China’s “Contract Law” stipulates: “When the debtor lacks the right to exercise his claims and causes damage to the creditors, the creditor may request the people’s court to exercise the debtor in his own name Claims, but the claims exclusive to the debtor. Subrogation exercise the scope of creditors to the limit. The cost of exercising subrogation by creditors, borne by the debtor. ”The article provides for the first time in our country to establish a subrogation system, China’s civil Litigation thus added a new type of litigation - creditor subrogation litigation. According to the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract Law Interpretation”), the application of the subrogation right in China’s subrogation and traditional subrogation theory Scope, scope of the object, mode of exercise and effectiveness, etc. In the above differences, the change of validity of subrogation is undoubtedly the most remarkable one in Article 20 of the Interpretation of Contract Law.