{"id":184,"thumbnail":"https://jilailawyer.com//rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBcXNDIiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--2b1070f5767826af94a232d87f02ac7706475af2/23123123.jpg","title_zh":"票据之债 —— 企业融资及支付工具的性质探究","title_en":"The debt of bills - a study on the nature of corporate financing and payment instruments","content_zh":"\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm;\"\u003e\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"/ckeditor_assets/pictures/198/content_2.jpg\" style=\"width: 400px; height: 532px;\" /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e作者：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e李方剑\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e单位：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e北京继来律师事务所\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e执业理念：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e法之所及，光之所至\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection powered-by=\"xiumi.us\" style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-transform: none; letter-spacing: 2px; font-family: -apple-system-font, BlinkMacSystemFont, \u0026quot;Helvetica Neue\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;PingFang SC\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Sans GB\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Microsoft YaHei UI\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Microsoft YaHei\u0026quot;, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; overflow-wrap: break-word;\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e一、票据之债研究的现实意义\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e票据作为企业重要的融资及支付方式，已深入到经济融通的各个环节。商业汇票、本票和支票是我国金融票据系统的三大票据，商业汇票则占据票据融通金额的绝大部分。以票据为载体构建起的债权债务关系，通过《票据法》的一系列设计，成功将实体债权债务关系虚拟化和固定化。票据的签发、背书转让、抵质押、承兑、抗辩及追索制度又与基础法律关系实现了融合，在处理票据实务纠纷时，如何从争议点出发合法、合理利用上述各个环节的法律设计尤为关键。票据问题发现是否足够深入，法理阐述是否足够透彻均关系到裁判者对实体法律关系的认定。不同于对基础法律关系的直接切入，在分析票据之债时，应严格区分票据与基础法律关系的产生、变更及消灭的法理依据，从而在交叉环节实现二者转化的合法性及严谨性。本文亦将从票据之债的构建基础展开分析，以求探究在实务层面解决票据纠纷时应当具备的法理思维。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e二、票据之债的归属\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e债是给付义务的统称，依据债的成因，通常可将债的种类分为意定之债与法定之债，其中意定之债包括合同之债、单方允诺之债；法定之债则包括侵权之债、无因管理之债及不当得利之债。票据之债亦是一种票据上的给付义务，但与上述债的种类均有所不同。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、票据之债具有半公法性质，并非意定之债\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e意定之债中不论合同之债还是单方允诺之债，属于民法中的意思自治范畴，即通常在不违反《合同法》第52条的情形下，均可被认定为合法有效。法律保护平等主体之间建立起的合同关系以及单方允诺之债，本质上是保护债权人曾经基于信赖而做出的意思表示，并对该信赖所做出的一系列合同行为。在票据之债中，债务人为履行某项义务而将票据背书给债权人，债权人基于对真实票据所具有兑付效力的信任接收票据之后，认为债权得到了偿付。实际上，若债务人向债权人支付货币，则该基础债权债务得到了即时消灭。但当债务人支付的是票据时，基础债权债务此时并未消灭，而是转化为票据上的债权债务。票据之债具有外观上的合法性，以及兑付上的无因性，也即双方的意定\u0026ldquo;有因之债\u0026rdquo;转化为了票据上的\u0026ldquo;无因之债\u0026rdquo;。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e除了背书转让的流通环节外，票据的制作、出售、兑付及最终留存环节均在金融机构的控制之下完成，票据的金融管控属性使得其具有半公法的性质，在公法强制力的框架之下，预留了票据使用人意思自治的窗口，具体罗列如下：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（1）签发。是否签发票据，票据上的日期、金额、收款人、用途等信息均由空白票据的持有人自助决定，是票据前端意思自治的直接提现。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（2）票据处分。票据属于权利性财产，持有票据的持票人享有票据权利，其有权自主决定转让、贴现以及兑付或进行抵质押。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e除去上述签发及票据处分环节，票据的填写、兑付均应按照《票据法》规定严格执行，否则会面临票据无效的结果。正是基于票据的半公法性质，方能将不同类型的债权债务关系抽象为统一的票据法律关系，从而使其能够具备一定的货币属性，在一定时空范围内实现流通。票据除了具有出票人之外，还必须具有收款人，故亦不符合单方允诺之债的特点。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、票据之债兑付具有彻底的无因性，亦非法定之债\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e不同于合同之债中给付的对等性，法定之债中的侵权之债、无因管理之债以及不当得利之债均具有弥补性的特点。而票据之债既不追求给付的对等性，亦不存在弥补的强制性。票据的半公法属性重在对票据的监督作用，其并未对票据施加任何附加条件。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e法定之债是典型的\u0026ldquo;有因之债\u0026rdquo;，即便是所谓的\u0026ldquo;无因管理\u0026rdquo;，该\u0026ldquo;无因\u0026rdquo;也是对损失产生的一种描述，而\u0026ldquo;债\u0026rdquo;产生的原因仍是基于\u0026ldquo;无因管理\u0026rdquo;，债权人应基于此获补偿。票据兑付的无因性决定了票据的兑付行为中，彻底不会过问持票人取得票据之债的原因。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、票据之债是金融管控体系之下的信用之债\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e信用之债也即以信用为担保之债，不同于有抵质押物的债权，持票人票据上的权利能否实现，完全基于承兑人及出票人的支付能力。而票据本身的含义，不过是告诉持票人\u0026ldquo;保证在票据到期后付款\u0026rdquo;的承诺。银行承兑汇票的付款责任人为承兑银行，商业承兑汇票的付款责任人为出票企业，显然信用程度要低于支付能力更强的银行机构。但不论哪种票据，其兑付环节均在银行的监控之下完成，并由银行负责向人民银行支付系统申报能及时支付的情况，人民银行按《票据法》相关规定作出处罚，该环节则是金融管控票据的具体体现。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e三、关于票据行为的无因性分析\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e1、\u003c/span\u003e票据使命的完成依赖于不同环节的票据行为，而票据行为的无因性是票据得以独善其身所遵循的最基本原则。票据行为的无因性主要体现在如下方面：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（1）权利义务主体以票据记载为限。\u0026ldquo;记载\u0026rdquo;成为票据上的权利义务与实体法律关系中权利义务的隔离墙。票据上记载的主体，则具有被记载位置上法定的权利义务；同样未被票据记载的主体，即使因转让、抵质押而取得票据的，亦不能取得票据上的权利义务，只能返回到基础法律关系中去。实务中大量存在意图通过票据转移占有的方式获得票据权利的情况，而实际上即便转移占有的法律设计非常完善，仍会因未被记载于票据之上而被排除在票据权利义务之外。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（2）提示付款时，承兑人或开票人履行付款义务的唯一条件是票据符合记载要求。前文已述，当基础法律关系转化为票据法律关系后，双方的权利义务将受制于票据记载，受《票据法》调整。承兑人在审核所收到的票据时，审查内容包括：票据的真实性、合法性，背书的合规性，开票人印鉴的真实性，托收人印鉴签字的真实性；以下内容不属于审核范围：收款人取得票据的原因依据，中间背书人及被背书人取得票据的原因及印鉴的真实性。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、付款人对直接前手的抗辩权是遵循\u0026ldquo;实质违约\u0026rdquo;及善意第三人制度的适用，票据行为中兑付环节的无因性不适用于票据的直接前后手之间。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e《票据法》第13条明确：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e票据债务人不得以自己与出票人或者与持票人的前手之间的抗辩事由，对抗持票人。但是，持票人明知存在抗辩事由而取得票据的除外。票据债务人可以对不履行约定义务的与自己有直接债权债务关系的持票人，进行抗辩。本法所称抗辩，是指票据债务人根据本法规定对票据债权人拒绝履行义务的行为。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e该条款实际明确了可以行使票据抗辩权的两种情形：其一是持票人明知票据债务人存在抗辩事由而仍主张付款时，可认定持票人丧失善意；其二是持票人只有向其直接前手主张票据权利时，此时因不涉及基础交易的第三方主体，该直接前手方有行使抗辩的权利。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e可见，该第13条款的规定全面阐释了善意第三人制度在票据上的应用，从而调和了票据无因性与票据抗辩权的法理冲突。尤其是对直接前手抗辩权的规定，遵循了\u0026ldquo;实质违约\u0026rdquo;的原则，即便票据符合支付款项的全部形式要件，票据债务人仍有权对未履行实体法律关系义务的直接前手拒绝付款。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e然而该条款并非对票据行为无因性的全部否定，即便票据债务人行使抗辩权，票据的出票行为、背书转让及抵质押等仍遵循形式有效的要件，且仅在特定情形下的兑付环节作出例外规制，亦是对法律实质正义的遵循。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e四、票据之债与基础法律关系\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1.票据法律关系与基础法律关系之间非主从关系。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e当一个新合同的产生是以另一个合同的存在为基础时，通常该基础合同为主法律关系，新合同为从法律关系。该法律关系以担保合同与主合同之间最为典型。《担保法》第5条规定：担保合同是主合同的从合同，主合同无效，担保合同无效。担保合同另有约定的，按照约定；担保合同被确认无效后，债务人、担保人、债权人有过错的，应当根据其过错各自承担相应的民事责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e该条款所规定的\u0026ldquo;主从关系\u0026rdquo;主要体现在效力性问题上，担保的意义在于\u0026ldquo;当债务人无法偿还债权人基于主合同产生的债务时，担保人承担还款责任\u0026rdquo;，也即担保人担保的标的为债权人与债务人之间的\u0026ldquo;合同之债\u0026rdquo;，当合同归于无效时，《合同法》第56条明确：无效的合同或者被撤销的合同自始没有法律约束力。此时依据导致合同无效的不同原因，合同之债消灭，产生新的侵权之债或不当得利之债，已经超出担保合同所担保的标的范畴，各方应当承担何种责任，亦应根据侵权或不当得利法律关系进行调整。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"margin: 0cm; font-style: normal; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003ci\u003e.\u003c/i\u003e票据法律关系则与之不同，主要体现如下：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（1）基础合同无效的事由，不得对抗非直接前后手的持票人。一方面基于合同的相对性，合同的抗辩事由权利不得及于合同主体之外的其他主体；另一方面基于善意相对人制度的引入，善意的非直接前后手的持票人权利应当予以保障，除非能够证明该持票人对合同瑕疵或无效存在明知的情形。票据的背书实质上是票据层面的债权转让，持票人提示付款时即为债权转让的通知，实务中债务人有权向受让人行使其全部对原债权人具有的抗辩权，但由于票据法律关系的独立性，在票据不存在书面瑕疵时，付款人不得将基础法律关系中的抗辩权引入到票据法律关系中。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e（2）两者系为并列关系，持票人或债权人只能择其一主张权利。前文已述，票据的产生是基于支付及融资便捷性的需求，通过将基础法律关系转化为票据法律关系，从而使支付融通进入快车道。因此，票据关系的产生不意味着基础法律关系的消灭，同时基础法律关系的消灭也不意味着票据关系的无效。但二者均属于债的正反面，任何一个关系的履行均可以实现债的消灭，且持票人或债权人仅能择其一主张权利。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e五、关于票据之债的实务运用\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e实务中票据纠纷发生时，基础交易及票据流转中的各类事实在案情中交叉呈现，双方极易各执一词僵持不下。事实上，由于基础法律关系与票据法律关系的独立性，各执一词并非无理，问题解决的关键点则在于二者存在交汇敞口的地方，把握住该交汇敞口处的事实及法律依据，方能把握票据纠纷的争议焦点。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、基础法律关系的抗辩事由是否可以在纠纷主体之间适用。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e票据纠纷发生时，应首先确认纠纷主体之间是否存在直接的基础法律关系，是否存在票据上的直接前后手关系。原则上，存在直接基础法律关系的，债务人可行使抗辩权，反之则不可。由于基础法律关系通常与涉及一系列的附带法律关系诸如担保、借贷、股权、投资等，而能否主张适用，均以基础法律关系的切入为起点。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"max-width: 100%; box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e、区分票据行为与非票据行为，方能正确适用法律。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"box-sizing: border-box;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"min-height: 1em;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e票据行为包括\u0026ldquo;签发、背书、承兑、保证\u0026rdquo;，实务中仍有其他行为会\u0026ldquo;伪装\u0026rdquo;成票据行为影响事实认定。2019年《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》票据部分即对现时审判中存在的认识不清问题予以明确。如关于贴现行为的认定上，当某种情形出现时，不能直接认定有效或无效，需根据贴现主体是否符合法定资质、贴现票据是否进行二次交易、票据记载是否合规、票据行为的无因性以及抗辩事由是否成立等因素综合考虑。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm; max-width: 100%;\"\u003e综上，票据作为企业融资及支付的重要工具，通常具有大额度的特点，出现票据纠纷将会面临较大的违约成本和诉讼成本，企业亦需要具备一定的票据法律知识储备，方能在业务及维权过程中最大程度地降低风险。\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/section\u003e\r\n","content_en":"\u003cp style=\"margin: 0cm;\"\u003e\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"/ckeditor_assets/pictures/198/content_2.jpg\" style=\"width: 400px; height: 532px;\" /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eAuthor: Li Fangjian\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eUnit: Beijing Jilai Law Firm\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003ePractice philosophy: where the law can reach, where the light can reach\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1. The practical significance of the research on the debt of bills\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eBills, as an important financing and payment method for enterprises, have penetrated into all aspects of economic financing. Commercial drafts, promissory notes and checks are the three major instruments in my country\u0026#39;s financial instrument system, and commercial drafts account for the vast majority of the amount of bill financing. The creditor\u0026#39;s rights and debts relationship constructed with bills as the carrier has successfully virtualized and fixed the entity creditor\u0026#39;s rights and debts relationship through a series of designs of the \u0026quot;Negotiable Instruments Law\u0026quot;. The issuance, endorsement, transfer, pledge, acceptance, defense and recourse systems of bills have been integrated with the basic legal relationship. When dealing with practical disputes over bills, the legal design of how to legally and reasonably utilize the above-mentioned links is particularly critical. . Whether the discovery of the issue of bills is sufficiently in-depth and whether the jurisprudence is sufficiently thorough are related to the judge\u0026#39;s determination of the substantive legal relationship. Different from the direct access to the basic legal relationship, when analyzing the debt of the negotiable instrument, the legal basis for the generation, modification and elimination of the negotiable instrument and the basic legal relationship should be strictly distinguished, so as to realize the legitimacy and rigor of the transformation of the two in the cross link. This article will also analyze the construction basis of the debt of negotiable instruments, in order to explore the legal thinking that should be possessed when resolving disputes over negotiable instruments at the practical level.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e2. Attribution of debts of bills\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eDebt is a general term for payment obligations. According to the cause of the debt, the types of debt can usually be divided into agreed debt and statutory debt, of which agreed debt includes contract debt and unilaterally promised debt; statutory debt includes tort debt. , No debts due to management and debts of unjust enrichment. The debt of the bill is also a payment obligation on the bill, but it is different from the above-mentioned types of debt.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1. The obligation of bills is of semi-public law nature, not an intentional obligation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eWhether it is a contractual obligation or a unilaterally promised obligation, the intentional obligation belongs to the category of autonomy of will in the civil law, that is, it can be recognized as legal and valid generally without violating Article 52 of the Contract Law. The law protects the contractual relationship established between equal subjects and the unilaterally promised debt, which is essentially to protect the creditor\u0026#39;s expression of intent based on reliance and a series of contractual behaviors made on the reliance. In the debt of bills, the debtor endorses the bill to the creditor in order to perform a certain obligation. In fact, if the debtor pays the creditor money, the underlying creditor\u0026#39;s rights and obligations are immediately eliminated. But when the debtor pays bills, the underlying creditor\u0026#39;s rights and obligations are not eliminated at this time, but are converted into creditor\u0026#39;s rights and debts on the bills. The debt of bills has the legitimacy in appearance and the causality in payment, that is, the \u0026quot;debt with cause\u0026quot; agreed by both parties is transformed into the \u0026quot;debt without cause\u0026quot; on the bill.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eIn addition to the circulation link of endorsement and transfer, the production, sale, redemption and final retention of bills are all completed under the control of financial institutions. The financial management and control attributes of bills make them semi-public law, under the framework of public law enforcement. , reserved a window for the autonomy of the user of the bill, which is listed as follows:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(1) Issuance. Whether to issue a bill, the date, amount, payee, purpose and other information on the bill are all decided by the holder of the blank bill, which is a direct withdrawal of the bill\u0026#39;s front-end autonomy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(2) Disposition of bills. The bills are property of rights, and the bearers who hold the bills have the right to the bills, and they have the right to independently decide to transfer, discount and redeem or pledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eExcept for the above-mentioned issues of issuance and bill disposal, the filling and redemption of bills should be strictly implemented in accordance with the \u0026quot;Negotiable Instruments Law\u0026quot;, otherwise the bill will be invalid. It is precisely based on the semi-public legal nature of bills that different types of creditor-debt relationships can be abstracted into a unified legal relationship of bills, so that they can have certain monetary attributes and realize circulation within a certain time and space. In addition to the drawer, the bill must also have a payee, so it does not meet the characteristics of a unilaterally promised debt.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e2. The debt redemption of bills is completely uncaused and is not a statutory debt.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eDifferent from the reciprocity of payment in contractual obligations, the tortious obligations, unreasonable management obligations and unjust enrichment obligations in statutory obligations all have the characteristics of reparation. The debt of bills neither pursues the reciprocity of payment, nor does it have the compulsion to make up. The semi-public law attribute of bills focuses on the supervision of bills, and it does not impose any additional conditions on bills.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eStatutory debt is a typical \u0026quot;debt with cause\u0026quot;, even if it is the so-called \u0026quot;management without cause\u0026quot;, the \u0026quot;no cause\u0026quot; is also a description of the loss, and the reason for the \u0026quot;debt\u0026quot; is still based on \u0026quot;no cause\u0026quot;. management\u0026rdquo; and creditors should be compensated for this. The non-causal nature of bill redemption determines that in the bill redemption behavior, the reasons for the bearer\u0026#39;s debt to the bill will not be asked at all.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e3. The debt of bills is the debt of credit under the financial management and control system\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eCredit debt is also a debt guaranteed by credit, which is different from the creditor\u0026#39;s rights with collateral and pledge. Whether the bearer\u0026#39;s rights on the bill can be realized or not depends entirely on the ability of the acceptor and the drawer to pay. The meaning of the note itself is nothing but a promise to tell the bearer to \u0026quot;guarantee payment after the maturity of the note\u0026quot;. The person responsible for payment of bank acceptance bills is the accepting bank, and the person responsible for payment of commercial acceptance bills is the issuing company. Obviously, the credit level is lower than that of banking institutions with stronger payment ability. However, no matter what kind of bills, the redemption link is completed under the supervision of the bank, and the bank is responsible for reporting to the payment system of the People\u0026#39;s Bank of China that the payment can be made in time. The specific embodiment of financial control bills.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e3. Causeless Analysis of Bill Behavior\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1. The completion of the bill\u0026#39;s mission depends on the bill behavior in different links, and the non-cause of bill behavior is the most basic principle that bills can follow to protect themselves. The no-cause behavior of bills is mainly reflected in the following aspects:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(1) The subject of rights and obligations is limited to the records of the bills. \u0026quot;Record\u0026quot; becomes the separation wall between the rights and obligations on the bill and the rights and obligations in the substantive legal relationship. The subject recorded on the negotiable instrument has the legal rights and obligations at the recorded position; the subject also not recorded on the negotiable instrument, even if it obtains the negotiable instrument due to transfer or pledge, cannot obtain the rights and obligations on the negotiable instrument, and can only return to the basic into legal relations. In practice, there are a lot of cases where the intention is to obtain the rights of the bills by means of transfer and possession of the bills. In fact, even if the legal design of the transfer and possession of the bills is very perfect, they will still be excluded from the rights and obligations of the bills because they are not recorded on the bills.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(2) When presenting for payment, the only condition for the acceptor or drawer to perform the payment obligation is that the bill meets the record requirements. As mentioned above, when the basic legal relationship is transformed into the legal relationship of negotiable instruments, the rights and obligations of both parties will be subject to the records of the negotiable instruments and adjusted by the \u0026quot;Negotiable Instruments Law\u0026quot;. When the acceptor examines the bills it receives, the examination contents include: the authenticity and legitimacy of the bills, the compliance of the endorsement, the authenticity of the drawer\u0026#39;s seal, and the authenticity of the collector\u0026#39;s seal and signature; the following content does not belong to the audit Scope: the basis for the reasons for the payee to obtain the bill, the reasons for the intermediate endorser and the endorsee to obtain the bill, and the authenticity of the seal.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e2. The right of defense of the payer to the direct predecessor follows the application of the \u0026quot;substantial breach of contract\u0026quot; and the system of a bona fide third party. The uncaused nature of the redemption link in the negotiable act does not apply to the direct predecessor of the negotiable instrument.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eArticle 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Law clearly states:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eThe debtor of the instrument shall not oppose the bearer on the grounds of defense between himself and the drawer or the predecessor of the bearer. However, unless the bearer obtains the negotiable instrument knowing that there is a reason for defense. The debtor of the bill may defend against the bearer who has a direct creditor-debt relationship with him who fails to perform the agreed obligations. The term \u0026ldquo;defense\u0026rdquo; as mentioned in this Law refers to the act of the debtor of the negotiable instrument refusing to perform his obligations to the creditor of the negotiable instrument in accordance with the provisions of this Law.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eThis clause actually clarifies the two situations in which the right of defense of the negotiable instrument can be exercised: one is that when the bearer knows that the debtor of the negotiable instrument has a defense and still claims payment, it can be determined that the bearer has lost goodwill; When the direct predecessor claims the right to the bill, since the third party of the underlying transaction is not involved at this time, the direct predecessor has the right to exercise the defense.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eIt can be seen that the provisions of Article 13 comprehensively explain the application of the bona fide third-party system to negotiable instruments, thereby reconciling the legal conflict between the negligence of negotiable instruments and the right of defense of negotiable instruments. In particular, the provisions on the right of defense of direct predecessor follow the principle of \u0026quot;substantial breach of contract\u0026quot;. Even if the bill meets all the formal requirements for payment, the debtor of the bill still has the right to refuse payment to the direct predecessor who fails to perform the obligation of the entity\u0026#39;s legal relationship.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eHowever, this clause is not a complete negation of the negotiable instrument behavior without cause. Even if the debtor of the instrument exercises the right of defense, the issuance of the instrument, endorsement, transfer and pledge of the instrument still follow the requirements of valid form, and are only made in the redemption link under specific circumstances. Exceptional regulation is also a compliance with the substantive justice of the law.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e4. Debt and basic legal relationship of negotiable instruments\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1. The non-master-slave relationship between the legal relationship of the instrument and the basic legal relationship.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eWhen the generation of a new contract is based on the existence of another contract, usually the basic contract is the primary legal relationship, and the new contract is the secondary legal relationship. The legal relationship is most typical between the guarantee contract and the main contract. Article 5 of the Guarantee Law stipulates that a guarantee contract is a subordinate contract of the main contract, the main contract is invalid, and the guarantee contract is invalid. If the guarantee contract otherwise stipulates, the agreement shall be followed; after the guarantee contract is confirmed to be invalid, if the debtor, guarantor and creditor are at fault, they shall bear corresponding civil liabilities according to their fault.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;master-subordinate relationship\u0026quot; stipulated in this clause is mainly reflected in the issue of validity. The significance of the guarantee is that \u0026quot;when the debtor cannot repay the debt generated by the creditor based on the main contract, the guarantor shall bear the repayment responsibility\u0026quot;, that is, the guarantee guaranteed by the guarantor. The subject matter is the \u0026quot;debt of the contract\u0026quot; between the creditor and the debtor. When the contract is invalid, Article 56 of the Contract Law makes it clear that an invalid contract or a cancelled contract is not legally binding from the beginning. At this time, according to the different reasons that lead to the invalidity of the contract, the debt of the contract has been eliminated, and a new debt of tort or unjust enrichment has arisen, which has exceeded the scope of the subject matter guaranteed by the guarantee contract. Adjustment of legal relationship of unjust enrichment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e2. The legal relationship of negotiable instruments is different, which is mainly reflected as follows:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(1) The reason for the invalidity of the basic contract shall not be against the bearer who is not the direct predecessor. On the one hand, based on the relativity of contracts, the rights of defense of contracts should not extend to other subjects other than the subject of the contract; on the other hand, based on the introduction of the system of bona fide counterparties, the rights of bearers who are not directly involved in good faith should be protected. Unless it can be proved that the bearer knew that the contract was defective or invalid. The endorsement of a negotiable instrument is essentially the transfer of the creditor\u0026#39;s rights at the level of the negotiable instrument. When the bearer presents the payment, it is a notice of the transfer of the creditor\u0026#39;s rights. Independence of the bill, when there is no written defect in the bill, the payer shall not introduce the right of defense in the basic legal relationship into the legal relationship of the bill.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e(2) The two are in a parallel relationship, and the holder or the creditor can only choose one to claim rights. As mentioned above, the generation of bills is based on the convenience of payment and financing. By transforming the basic legal relationship into the legal relationship of bills, the payment financing enters the fast lane. Therefore, the generation of the negotiable instrument relationship does not mean the elimination of the basic legal relationship, and the elimination of the basic legal relationship does not mean the invalidation of the negotiable instrument relationship. However, both belong to the positive and negative sides of the debt, and the performance of either relationship can realize the elimination of the debt, and the bearer or creditor can only choose one to claim rights.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e5. Practical application of debts on bills\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eIn practice, when disputes over negotiable instruments occur, all kinds of facts in the basic transaction and circulation of negotiable instruments are cross-presented in the case, and it is very easy for both parties to stick to each other and stick to each other. In fact, due to the independence of the basic legal relationship and the legal relationship of the negotiable instruments, it is not unreasonable to insist on their own words. The key point of solving the problem lies in the place where the two have an intersection exposure, and grasp the fact and legal basis of the intersection exposure. , in order to grasp the dispute focus of bill disputes.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e1. Whether the defense of the basic legal relationship can be applied between the subjects of the dispute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eWhen a negotiable instrument dispute occurs, it should first confirm whether there is a direct basic legal relationship between the subjects of the dispute, and whether there is a direct front-backer relationship on the negotiable instrument. In principle, if there is a direct basic legal relationship, the debtor can exercise the right of defense, but not vice versa. Since the basic legal relationship usually involves a series of incidental legal relationships such as guarantees, loans, equity, investment, etc., whether it can be claimed or not depends on the entry of the basic legal relationship.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e2. Only by distinguishing between negotiable instruments and non-invoice acts can the law be applied correctly.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eThe acts of negotiable instruments include \u0026quot;issuance, endorsement, acceptance, and guarantee\u0026quot;. In practice, there are still other acts that will \u0026quot;disguise\u0026quot; as acts of negotiable instruments and affect fact determination. The bill section of the 2019 \u0026quot;Minutes of the National Courts\u0026#39; Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference\u0026quot; clarifies the problems of unclear understanding in the current trial. For example, in the determination of discounting behavior, when a certain situation occurs, it cannot be directly determined to be valid or invalid, and it needs to be based on whether the subject of discounting meets the legal qualifications, whether the discounted bills are subject to secondary transactions, whether the records of the bills are compliant, and the reasons for the bill behavior are unreasonable. Consideration should be given to factors such as sexuality and whether the grounds for defense are established.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003eTo sum up, bills, as an important tool for corporate financing and payment, usually have the characteristics of large amounts. In the event of bill disputes, they will face greater breach of contract costs and litigation costs. Enterprises also need to have a certain amount of bill legal knowledge. and minimize risks in the process of safeguarding rights.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","_type":"继来法视界","position":0,"created_at":"2020-12-07T15:14:49.000+08:00","updated_at":"2020-03-24T14:18:00.000+08:00","pv":19689,"abstract_zh":"票据作为企业重要的融资及支付方式，已深入到经济融通的各个环节。商业汇票、本票和支票是我国金融票据系统的三大票据，商业汇票则占据票据融通金额的绝大部分。","abstract_en":"Bills, as an important financing and payment method for enterprises, have penetrated into all aspects of economic financing. Commercial drafts, promissory notes and checks are the three major instruments in my country's financial instrument system, and commercial drafts account for the vast majority of the amount of bill financing.","link":""}