论文部分内容阅读
一、清偿提存论~①反思1、提存消灭债务于理无据我国理论界的通说把提存的性质定格为消灭债务。~②法律也把提存规定为合同权利义务终止的原因之一(《合同法》91条)。但是提存的性质是否就应该定格为消灭债务?为什么债务人把债的标的物交付给提存部门就消灭了其债务呢?笔者认为,债务人把债的标的物交付到提存部门,可以认定债务人正在实施债务履行行为,但在未经债权人确认或司法机构裁定的情况下,仅通过债务人的单方行为径直消灭债务却显得有些唐突,于理无据,很难解释。
I. Settlement of Liquidation ~ ① Reflection 1. Existence of Debt Abandonment According to the theory of our country, the nature of deposit is set as debt elimination. The law also sets aside the deposit as one of the reasons for the termination of the contractual rights and obligations (Article 91 of the Contract Law). However, the nature of the deposit should be fixed for the elimination of debt? Why did the debtor deliver the subject matter of debt to the depository department to eliminate its debt? In my opinion, the debtor delivered the subject matter of the debt to the depository department, you can determine that the debtor is implementing the debt However, without the confirmation by the creditors or the judgments of the judiciary, it is somewhat unjustifiable to dismiss the debts straight through the debtor’s unilateral act. It is hard to explain why.