诉讼法视角下的先诉抗辩权研究——兼评民法典各分编草案中的先诉抗辩权  

Study on The Privilege of Order from the Perspective of Procedural Law——Comment on the Privilege of Order in Sections of Civil Code(Draft)

作　　者：宋春龙 

机构地区：[1]中国海洋大学法学院,山东青岛266100

出　　处：《政治与法律》2019年第3期23-34,共12页Political Science and Law

基　　金：作者主持的中央高校基本科研业务费专项"数人侵权责任诉讼形态研究"(项目编号:201913003)的部分研究成果

摘　　要：目前,我国的先诉抗辩权制度的实体内容向程序规范转化不畅,过分侧重审判程序而忽视执行程序。理论上对先诉抗辩权的程序内容认识不一,有关研究呈现抽象化、条块化与封闭化的状态,司法实践也无法为先诉抗辩权提供统一、可操作的程序。《民法典各分编(草案)》第477条对我国《担保法》第17条进行了修正,将"先诉抗辩权"定位为"先执行抗辩权",回归了先诉抗辩权的本质,但《民法典各分编(草案)》仍有改进空间,应认可先诉抗辩权的独立地位,删除保证人放弃先诉抗辩权的规定,重构先诉抗辩权的阻却事由,并澄清侵权补充责任的独立地位。我国的民事诉讼法也应对此做出回应,在审判程序中限定具体起诉方式,并在执行程序中构建"债务人不能履行债务"的判断程序。At present,the substantive content of the system of the privilege of order is not smoothly connected with its procedural norms,among which the trial procedure is excessively emphasized and the execution procedure is ignored. In academia,there are different opinions about the procedural content of the privilege of order and the research is abstract,incomprehensive and closed. Judicial practice cannot provide a uniform and operable procedure for the privilege of order. Article 477 of Sections of the Civil Code (Draft) makes amendment to Article 17 of the Guarantee Law by orientating "the privilege of order" as "privilege of enforcement" and shows the essence of the privilege of order,but "Sections of the Civil Code (Draft)still may be further improved in this aspect. It should recognize the independent status of the privilege of order, delete provisions on waiving the privilege of order,reestablish causes for negation of the privilege of order, and make clear the independent status of the supplementary responsibility for tort. The civil procedural law of China should respond to this by defining specific methods of filing a lawsuit in the trial procedure and constructing a process for concluding that the debtor cannot fulfill its debt in the enforcement procedure.

关 键 词：先诉抗辩权 一般保证 补充责任 诉讼形态 民法典 

分 类 号：DF51[政治法律—民商法学]