跟单信用证关系性质的民法理论分析

分类号密级UDC编号10520硕士学位论文跟单信用证关系性质的民法理论分析研究生姓名：董金鑫指导教师姓名、职称：张晓东教授学科门类：法学专业名称：国际法研究方向：国际经济法二〇一一年三月三日OnTheAnalysisoftheNatureoftheRelationshipofDocumentaryLetterofCreditbytheTheoryofCivilLawByDongJinxinMarch3,20111中南财经政法大学学位论文独创性声明和使用授权声明学位论文独创性声明本人所呈交的学位论文，是在导师的指导下，独立进行研究所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写的作品。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中标明。本声明的法律后果由本人承担。论文作者（签名）：年月日学位论文使用授权声明本人完全了解中南财经政法大学关于收集、保存、使用学位论文的规定。本人愿意按照学校要求提交学位论文的印刷本和电子版，同意学校保存学位论文的印刷本和电子版，或采用影印、缩印、数字化或其它复制手段保存论文；同意学校在不以营利为目的的前提下，建立目录检索与阅览服务系统，公布论文的部分或全部内容，允许他人依法合理使用。（保密论文在解密后遵守此规定）论文作者（签名）：年月日2摘要跟单信用证关系是平等主体之间的跨国财产流转关系，而财产流转关系属于民法的范畴，那么信用证必然在民法上具有一席之地。由于信用证涉及一系列复杂的法律关系，有关当事人又往往不注重对此进行分析，如采用“信用证就是信用证”这种不清晰的界定，因而在理论和实践中产生许多的误解和争议。同时，现有的国内外文献对跟单信用证关系的论述为数不少，但大多由于对民法理论理解不深而存在定性上的偏差。因而有必要运用民法理论对跟单信用证关系的性质、特点进行分析。本文将系统地对信用证诸个法律关系进行定性分析，具体而言，除旨在厘定信用证关系的范围以及阐述文章的写作意义的绪论外，分为五章：第一章讨论了开证申请人和开证行之间的开证关系的性质，开证关系具有借贷因素和委托因素的双重性质，开证申请人向开证行借取一笔用以支付国际货物买卖合同项下的款项的贷款。该贷款由开证行向开证申请人指定的第三人即受益人发放，而发放贷款的前提条件是受益人提供与开证申请人要求相符的单据。开证行承担审单的义务则说明开证申请人和开证行间还存在委托的因素，借贷同委托密不可分，形成混合合同关系。第二章在结合现有民法学说的基础上，探讨了开证行和受益人之间的交单付款关系的性质，指出了该法律关系本质是单务合同关系。交单只是银行履行付款义务的前提，而不构成该履行的对价，这也是为何将根据信用证称为有条件的付款许诺的原因。由于开证行的支付行为最能体现该类合同的性质，故在学理上将此无名合同称为支付合同。第三章分析了保兑关系的当事人及关系人，得出了保兑关系是开证行和保兑行之间的并存的债务承担关系，即保兑行介入到信用证支付合同关系之中，与开证行一道成为该单务法律关系的债务人。而保兑行和受益人之间的关系是对支付关系的主体进行了变更，是保兑发生的法律效果，并非单独的保兑关系的本身。第四章回顾了UCP对议付的规定并对现有学说进行了评析，并结合民法理论得出议付关系的本质是议付行和受益人之间有偿债权让与关系。转让的标的是获取信用证下款项的权利，而非履行信用证的权利。它不同于票据权利的转让、可转让信用证以及信用证下的款项让渡。此外，如果议付行是保兑行，由于它本来就承担向受益人付款的义务，则议付只能视为债务的提前履行。第五章分析了传统民法替他人偿债方式在信用证关系中的体现，重点阐述了信用证支付关系这一特他人偿债的新形式，并从信用链条构建的角度对全文进行了总结。关键词：信用证；开证；支付；议付；保兑；法律关系；民法IAbstractThenexusofdocumentaryletterofcreditbelongstorelationshipsofpropertycirculationbetweentheequalbodiesacrossnations’border.Asrelationshipsofpropertycirculationbelongtothecategoriesofcivillaw,theletterofcreditinevitablyhasitsownstatusincivillaw.Becausetheletterofcreditinvolvesaseriesofcomplicatedlegalrelationships,andtherelatedlitigantsoftendonotpaygreatattentiontoanalyzeit,suchasusingthoseimplicitdefinitionof‘aletterofcreditisaletterofcredit’,ithasproducedmanymisunderstandingsanddisputesbothinthetheoryandpractice.Atthesametime,therearemanyexistingdocuments;bothindomesticandforeign,discussingthenexusofdocumentaryletterofcredit,butmostofthemhaveproblemsincharacterizationasaresultofmisunderstandingofthetheoryofcivillaw.Thushasthenecessitytoanalyzethenatureandcharacteristicofthenexusofdocumentaryletterofcreditbyusingthetheoryofcivillaw.Thispaperwillhaveaqualitativeanalysisofthenexusofdocumentaryletterofcreditsystematically.Tobespecific,besidestheintroductionwhichdeterminestherangeofnexusofletterofcreditandelaborateonthesignificanceofwritingofthispaper,itisdividedintofivecharters:ThecharteronediscussesthenatureofrelationshipsbetweentheApplicantandtheIssuingBank.IssuingaL/Chasdualcharactersofentrustandexchangeofdebt.ApplicantlendsaloanfromtheIssuingBanktopaythedebtunderthecontractfortheinternationalsaleofgoods.ThisloanisgivenbytheIssuingBanktothethirdparty(Beneficiary)pointedbyApplicant,andtheprerequisiteofgrantingaloanistoofferdocumentsprovidedbyBeneficiaryaccordingtotherequestofApplicant.TheobligationofcheckingthedocumentsbytheIssuingBankmeansthereexistsentrustbetweenheApplicantandtheIssuingBank.Entrustandexchangeofdebtgohandinhand,formingmixedcontractualrelationship.ThechartertwodiscussesthenatureofrelationshipsbetweentheIssuingBankandBeneficiary,andpointsoutthisnexusistherelationshipofunilateralcontractessentially.Thepresentationofdocumentsisonlythepremiseofperformingpaymentdutyofbanks,anddoesnotconstitutetheconsiderationofthisperformance.Thisisthereasonwhytheletterofcreditisalsobecalledpromiseofpaymentwithconditions.BecausethepaymentbehaviorofIssuingBankismostlyabletomanifestthenatureofthiscontract,IIthereforethisnamelesscontractiscalledthepaymentcontractintheory.Thecharterthirdanalyzesthepartiesandrelatedpersonofconfirmationrelationship,arrivesaconclusionthatconfirmationrelationshipistherelationshipofthecoexistingassignmentofdebtsbetweentheIssuingBankandConfirmingBank.Inthisway,ConfirmingBankgetsinvolvedintherelationshipofpaymentcontractofL/C,andbecomesjointdebtorswiththeIssuingBankinthisunilaterallegalnexus.TherelationshipsbetweentheConfirmingBankandbeneficiarychangesthesubjectoftherelationshipofpayment,islegaleffectofconfirmation,notconfirmationrelationshipitself.ThecharterfourreviewsthestipulationofnegotiationbyUCP,evaluatestheexistingtheory,andobtainstheconclusionthatnegotiationrelationshipisinessenceisassignmentofcreditwithcompensationbetweentheNegotiatingBankandthebeneficiaryunifiesthetheoryofcivillaw.ThetransferentialobjectisnottherighttoperformundertheCredit,buttoreceivetheproceedsundertheL/C.Itisdifferentwiththetransferofbill’sright,TransferableCreditaswellastheassignmentofproceeds.Inaddition,iftheNegotiatingBankisalsoaConfirmingBank,asitundertakesthedutywhichoriginallypaysmoneytothebeneficiary,thenthenegotiationcanonlyberegardedastheaheadoftime’sfulfillmentadebt.Thecharterfiveanalyzesthemethodsofdebtredemptionforotherpeopleintraditionalcivil