论文部分内容阅读
本文从债权让与与债权质押的性质比较,得出债权质押对债权交换价值使用的独特作用。然而我国债权让与制度中规定的债权,并不完全等同于债权质押中债权的范围,债权质押的债权范围远远小于债权让与的债权范围,笔者将论述可转让债权作为债权质押标的的理由,对于不可转让的债权是否完全不可作为债权质押的标的,以及相关的一些问题。
This paper compares the nature of the claims and pledges, and draws the unique role of claims pledge on the use of the value of the debt exchange. However, the creditor’s rights stipulated in the system of creditor’s rights assignment in our country are not exactly the same as the scope of the claims in the pledge of claims. The range of claims pledged by the claims is far less than the scope of the claims that the creditor’s rights are conferred. I will discuss the reasons for using the negotiable claims as the pledge object , Whether the non-transferable claims can not be used as the object of pledge of claims, and some related issues.