票据授受的直接当事人与原因关系上的抗辩:德国法的经验与启示  

Direct Parties to the Bill Relationship and the Defense of Causation:Experience and Insights from German Law

作　　者：任我行 REN Woxing

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《中德法学论坛》2022年第2期104-136,共33页

基　　金：国家留学基金委“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”(项目编号202206210227)资助。

摘　　要：票据授受的直接当事人能否提出原因关系上的抗辩?对此存在多种理论构成方式。德国传统的不当得利抗辩说认为,只有在原因关系上存在权利障碍抗辩、权利消灭抗辩或永久性抗辩时票据债务人才得以不当得利抗辩对抗票据债权人。德国联邦最高法院则以“票据债权人不得主张超过其在原因关系上所享有范围的权利”为理由,通过交付合意,原则上使得原因关系上所有的情事皆能对票据关系产生影响。反对者普遍认为,此种理论构成有违反票据行为无因性之嫌。德国学者施瑙德尔(Schnauder)提出的新不当得利抗辩理论为克服传统的不当得利抗辩之缺陷,认为当事人为调整原因关系上的一时性抗辩,可以合意将原因关系上的交换目的纳入交付合意,从而“违反交付合意的票据权利行使”会导致票据行为的给付目的落空,进而产生不当得利返还请求与抗辩。至于为担保原因债务而交付票据的情形,考虑到担保权与被担保债权之间的从属性,票据债务人可以主张原因关系上所有的抗辩。我国《票据法》第13条第2款只规范了为担保原因债务而交付票据的情况,至于为履行原因债务而交付票据,原因关系上的情事只有在当事人达成合意的前提下才得以构成交付合意的内容。在后一场合,票据债务人主张原因关系上抗辩的实证法依据并非《票据法》第13条第2款,而是《民法典》第985条。There are various theoretical approaches of the defense of causation raised by the direct party to the bill relationship.German\s conventional methodology named“objection of unjust enrichment”holds that the debtor of a bill may only assert a defense of unjust enrichment against the creditor only if there is an objection destroying the right,objection hindering the right or permanent objection underlying the causal relationship.The German Federal Supreme Court,on the other hand,has held that“a creditor cannot claim more rights than he has in the causal relationship”and that,in principle,all circumstances in the causal relationship may intervene the bill relationship through the delivery agreement.The opponents generally believe that this theory constitutes a violation of the causelessness of the act of bill.In order to overcome the shortcomings of the conventional theory of“objection of unjust enrichment”,Schnauder proposed a new theory of unjust enrichment defense,arguing that the parties can agree to incorporate the purpose of exchange in the causal relationship into the delivery agreement in order to adjust the objections in the causal relationship,so that“the exercise of the right of the bill in violation of the delivery agreement”can lead to the failure of the purpose of grant of the act of bill.As long as the purpose of grant of the act of bill is failed,the objection/restitution based upon unjust enrichment arises.However,if the bill is delivered in order to secure the causal debt,the debtor of the bill may assert all objections to the cause relationship,taking into account the subordination of the security right to the secured claim.The direct confrontation theory is inseparable from the“relative causelessness theory”prevailing in China,but it either has theoretical flaws or has the problem of excessive burden of argument,which is not sufficient.Article 13(2)of the Bills Act only regulates the situation where the bill is delivered for the purpose of securing the causal debt,and the scen

关 键 词：票据关系 原因关系 交付合意 票据抗辩 不当得利 

分 类 号：D951.6[政治法律—法学] D922.287