摘要
司法实践对诉讼财产保全责任保险费用应由何主体承担的裁判观点较为混乱,存在由被告承担、由原告承担及由双方共同承担三种类型。裁判分歧的背后是不同法院对诉讼财产保全责任保险费用定性的差异。诉讼财产保全责任保险费用既不属于诉讼费用,也不应认定为违约损失,而应定性为财产保全担保成本。诉讼财产保全责任保险费用的性质决定了诉讼财产保全责任保险费用的承担主体应为原告,这符合财产保全担保制度的功能预设,也是原告理性衡量诉讼风险与预期收益以降低诉讼成本的结果。在诉讼财产保全责任保险担保功能较弱及财产保全错误认定困难的背景下,这有利于平衡双方诉讼地位,实现法律的实质正义。
In judicial practice,the judgment opinions on which subject should bear the cost of litigation property preservation liability insurance are confused,and there are three types:the defendant,the plaintiff and both parties.Behind the difference in judgment is the difference in the qualitative determination of litigation property preservation liability insurance cost by different courts.The cost of litigation property preservation liability insurance is not the litigation cost,nor should it be defined as the loss of breach of contract,but as the guarantee cost of property preservation.Its nature determines that the subject of the cost should be the plaintiff,which conforms to the functional presupposition of the property preservation guarantee system,and is also the result of the plaintiff's rational measurement of litigation risk and expected income to reduce litigation costs.Under the background of the weak guarantee function of litigation property preservation liability insurance and the difficulty in the wrong identification of property preservation,it is conducive to balancing the litigation status of both parties and realizing the substantive justice of the law.
出处
《保险职业学院学报》
2023年第4期73-81,共9页
Journal of Insurance Professional College
关键词
诉讼财产保全责任保险
财产保全担保
担保成本负担
诉讼费用
违约损失
litigation property preservation liability insurance
property preservation guarantee
guarantee cost burden
litigation costs
loss on breach of contract
