頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 票據時效中斷與中斷後之效果--以日本為中心=The Legal Significance of the Interruption of the Period of Limitation of the Negotiable Instrument |
---|---|
作者 | 賴世琳; Lai, Shih-lin; |
期刊 | 國立臺中技術學院通識教育學報 |
出版日期 | 20081200 |
卷期 | 2 2008.12[民97.12] |
頁次 | 頁189-213 |
分類號 | 585.322 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 票據時效; 時效中斷; 時效中斷之相對性; 告知訴訟; 付款請求權; 追索權; 訴訟外之請求; 訴訟上之請求; 票據之提示; 票據之持有; Prescription; Interruption of the period of limitation; Interruption of the period of limitation is only effective against the person; Notice to third party; The claim arising out of a bill; Recourse; Present the bill; Hold the bill; |
中文摘要 | 本文係探討票據時效,特別針對我票據法所付之闕如之時效中斷相對性(日手七一、小五二)及以告知訴訟而中斷時效(日手八六、小七三,我民一二九Ⅱ④、民訴六五)為主軸,探討時效中斷之事由,再擴大至時效中斷後之效果。其參考資料大多取自日本之文獻,由學說、判例為基本架構,或許是成文法欠缺之緣故,而使我國少有文獻出現,筆者不揣譾陋,大膽的嘗試,期望能有所見地。 全文分為四節,首先第壹節緒論,探討票據時效之意義,乃票據上之權利為債權(請求權)之一種,因一定期間之不行使,而使票據債務人取得時效消滅之抗辯權。第貳節係針對時效中斷之事由:仿照日本之制度,分為於訴訟外之請求一催告(我民法第一二九條第一項第一款之「請求」)與訴訟上之請求一起訴,探討是否須提示或持有票據。若基於時效中斷制度乃僅以權利人未睡眠於權利之上之事實存在而承認其效果,是故為了中斷票據上權利之時效而為訴訟上之請求者,係不須提示票據;不持有票據之權利人若無法提示票據而為訴訟上之請求者,亦無否定其中斷時效之效力之理由,故兩者可均不提示票據而生時效中斷效力,為現行日本多數學說及判例所贊成。 依通說考量再追索之消滅時效甚短,為了確保償還義務人行使再追索權之機會而特別承認,故不得對主債務人以告知訴訟而中斷時效。但少數說認為,為了避免受款人兼背書人於訴訟繫屬中,自到期日起經過三年之時點,本票發票人得以債務因時效消滅為抗辯而拒絕執票人之請求;然而與其承認發票人得提出抗辯,毋寧是承認受款人自得採取時效中斷措施較為妥當。第參節時效中斷之特殊問題:時效中斷者有其相對性,若採不僅對票據債務人,並且亦對於票據債權人發生效力者,則已為清償之背書人係不得援用執票人對本票發票人所中斷時效之效力;然而,若採時效中斷僅對於票據債務人發生效力者,則已為清償之背書人係得以援用執票人對本票發票人所中斷時效之效力。係因,主債務人若受執票人中斷時效措施後,即應對其負責,因此對於由執票人收回票據之償還義務人(背書人)亦應負責,故應承認償還義務人得援用執票人對主債務人所中斷時效之效力。 立法上,時效期間係涉及財產權之保護,而起訴期間涉及訴權行使之政策考量,為兩個不同之制度設計,為預防執票人濫用訴訟期間而剝奪支票發票人依法取得之時效利益,並促使執票人早日行使權利勿使權利睡眠,於新時效期間,若另無中斷時效事由發生,則俟新時效經過後,請求權仍因時效經過而消滅。票據權利之時效因起訴而中斷後,經確定判決所確定之票據權利,其重行起算之新時效期間,一律為五年(民一三七Ⅲ);而本項規定僅將不滿五年之特別期間延長為五年之特別期間,非如德、日之立法例,將該時效期間加長至一般期間。 |
英文摘要 | The right arising out of the negotiable instrument, if not exercised for a given period of time, the debtor of bill can get the right of exception of prescription. The system of prescription insists upon his rights to admit the fact is not slept in his rights. The law that stated “Interruption of the period of limitation is only effective against the person in respect of whom the period has been interrupted.” is applicable. The maker of promissory note or an acceptor of bill of exchanged is interrupted by the holder, and he is bound to the holder, so that to admit the endorser or guarantor to use the effect which the holder has interrupted. The prescription of a bill have been sued to be interrupted, the court decision to be sentenced by the court to establish the right of a bill, renew the prescription is 5 years, specially under 5 years of legal period to will be postponed until 5 years of special term. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。