《个人独资企业法》五年期间法律性质评析——兼论第二十八条的立法完善
马蒂, 谭睿娟
四川广播电视大学文法学院, 四川成都 610073
起止页码: 59--63页
DOI:
摘要：
基于债权安全的考虑，在个人独资企业解散后，原投资人对其存续期间的债务仍应承担偿还责任，德、法、日等主要国家的商事法律都有类似规定。为平衡债权人与原投资人利益，我国《个人独资企业法》在确认原投资人偿债责任的同时，又规定债权人未于五年内提出偿债请求的，清偿责任消灭。故该五年期间于原投资人、原债权人利害关系重大，对期间性质的不同理解可能在实体法和程序法上产生不同的结果。这个期间尽管具有除斥期间、权利失效期间的部分特征，但从期间经过后的法律效果、适用客体的法律特征、立法价值取向等因素综合分析，解为消灭时效更为准确。同时，《个人独资企业法》第二十八条将原投资人界定为债务人，无视个人独资企业、投资人的人格独立性，混淆了责任与债务的界限，有悖法理。因此，建议参照《合伙企业法》修改的经验，取消"五年"特殊期间的规定，使承担无限责任的出资人就企业未结清债务的连带责任统一适用普通消灭时效，以符合类似情况类似处理的法律原则。
Analysis of the Legal Nature of Sole Proprietorship Enterprise Law during Five Years——On the Improvement of the Legislation of Article 28
MA Di, TAN Rui-juan
Sichuan Radio & TV University, Chendu, Sichuan 610073, China
Abstract:
Based on the considerations of creditor's rights and security,after the dissolution of an individual-owned enterprise,the original investor should still assume the responsibility of repaying the debts of the original investor during its existence.The commercial laws of major countries such as Germany,France and Japan all have similar provisions.In order to balance the interests of creditors and the original investors,while confirming the original investor's liability for debt repayment,China's Sole Proprietorship Enterprise Law stipulates that if the creditor fails to submit a repaying request within five years,the liquidation liability shall be extinguished.Therefore,the five-year period is of great interest to the original investor and former creditor,and different understandings of the nature of the period may have different results in substantive law and procedural law.Although this period has some characteristics during the periods of exclusion and the expiry of rights,the comprehensive analysis of the legal effects of the object,the legal features of the applicable object,and the orientation of the value of the legislation expresses the more accurate elimination of the limitation of time.Meanwhile,Article 28 of the Sole Proprietorship Enterprise Law defines the original investor as the debtor,disregarding the personality independence of individualowned enterprises and investors and confounding the line between liability and debt,which is contrary to the law.Therefore,it is suggested to abolish the special provisions of "five years" with reference to the revised experience of the Partnership Enterprise Law so as to unify the common obliteration statutes of the joint and several liability for the unfinished business of the indemnified contributors in conformity with the similar situation legal principles of treatment.
收稿日期: 2017-10-19
基金项目:
参考文献：
[1]王恒.保证期间的本体论批判[J].河北法学,2011(10):137-145.
[2]彭万林.民法学(修订本)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:132.
[3]李哲松.韩国公司法[M].吴日焕,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:134.
[4]王泽鉴.法律思维与民法实例[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:220.
[5]孟庆吉.形成权基本理论研究[D].哈尔滨:黑龙江大学,2012.
[6]王泽鉴.债法原理(第一册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:28.
[7]史尚宽.债法总论[M].台北:荣泰印书馆股份有限公司,1979:4.
[8]霍海红."20年期间"定性之争鸣与选择[J].华东政法大学学报,2010(3):28-37.
[9]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:515.
[10]佟柔.中华法学大辞典·民法学卷[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1995:593.
[11]杨天红.权利失效法律制度研究[D].重庆:重庆大学,2010.
[12]杨巍.我国民法不应建立权利失效制度[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2010(1):135-140.
[13]谭莉.买卖合同检验期间制度研究[D].重庆:西南政法大学,2015.
[14]郑永宽.诉讼时效强制性的反思[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(4):43-50.
[15]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东,译.北京:法律出版社,2000:91.
[16]我妻荣.债权在近代法中的优越地位[M].王书江,张雷,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1999:21.
[17]金印.诉讼时效强制性之反思——兼论时效利益自由处分的边界[J].法学,2016(7):122-136.
[18]孙鹏.去除时效制度的反道德性:时效制度存在理由论[J].现代法学,2010(5):52-59.
[19]梁彗星.民法总则立法的若干理论问题[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2016(1):19-40.