Earticle

초록

영어

The third person involved in debt means that the course ought to ensure the security of its legal nature, or debt transfer, or a third party to benefit, will directly affect the ultimate accountability. Third party to lease payments and payments on behalf of a third act both for the theoretical circle, or judicial practice, the law is a new application. China"fs "gContract Law,"h the 65th article of the third party to perform the contract payment the liability method, but not on behalf of third party payment contract for clearly defined, and legal theorists have not systematically on this issue and China, Chinese law, subrogation, subrogate, payment by subrogation, performance by subrogation, third-party payment, debt transfer, guarantee, accountability relatively complete study and comb. The lack of both a direct result of the differences in the administration of justice and the rule differences. The same or similar legal fact, the formation of different courts in different and even contrary ruling, this certainly should cause us to think. We need to appropriate law enforcement standard, and relatively uniform scale. This paper together with the shareholders involved in a typical case of corporate bonds to start, analyzes the meaning of the shareholders involved in corporate bonds, said the legal nature and focus of the third party to benefit the administration of justice define the issues in-depth legal research.
This paper attempts to theoretical analysis of typical cases, a clear third party to the judicial definition of lease payments, third party intervention unified debt Responsibility. I hope this benefits all of the third party to resolve contract related issues, serve.

중국어

第三人介入债的意思表示，其法律性质当属保证担保，还是债务转移， 抑或是第三人代为给付将直接影响到最终的责任承担。第三人代为给付契约及第三人代为给付行为无论对于我国法学理论界还是司法实务界而言，都是一个崭新的法律适用问题。我国《合同法》第六十五条规定了第三人代为给付这一合同履行方式的法律责任，但未对第三人代为给付契约作明确的界定，而法学理论界也没有就此问题进行系统地和相对完整的研究和梳理。
这两方面的欠缺直接导致了司法裁判中的意见分歧和裁决差异。同一或相近法律事实，在不同的法院形成不同甚至相反的判决结果，这无疑要引起我们的思考。我们需要适法标准和执法尺度的相对统一。本文从一起股东介入公司债的典型案件入手，剖析了该案股东介入公司债之意思表示的法律性质，并重点对第三人代为给付的司法界定问题进行了深入的法理研究。本文试图通过对典型案件的理论分析，明确第三人代为给付契约的司法界定，统一第三人介入债的责任认定。希望本文能都对第三人代为给付契约的相关问题的 解决起到抛砖引玉的作用。

목차

一. 一起股东介入公司债务纠纷的典型案例
 二. 涉案“协议”性质之法理分析
  (一) 保证担保性质之否定
  (二) 债务转移性质之否定
  (三) 第三人代为给付性质之肯定
 三．第三人代为给付契约法理分析及司法界定
  (一) 第三人代为给付与第三人代为给付契约的关系
  (二) 第三人代为给付契约的特点
  (三) 第三人代为给付契约与债务转移协议及保证担保合同的司法界定
 四．结束语
 ≪ 参考文献≫
 중문요약

저자

• 王瑞 [ 왕서 | 国际法，天津财经大学法学院副教授 ]

참고문헌