论公证邮寄送达催收通知能否发生诉讼时效中断

On Whether the Notarization Mail Delivery Informs Have the Limitation of Action to Interrupt

实践中,债权人通过邮寄的方式,向债务人或者担保人进行邮寄送达催收,并依法给予公证的做法是比较常见的。但是,由于我国现行法律没有对该公证邮寄送达催收通知的法律效力作出较为明确的规定,因此,笔者依据我国现行的法律及其司法解释、结合我国司法实践中两种比较常见的学术观点,适用民事诉讼证据中高度盖然性的证明标准,对公证邮寄送达催收通知能否发生诉讼时效中断的效力问题进行相应论述。

In practice, It is legally quite common for the creditor to carry on the mail delivery to the debtor or the guarantor to receive after dunning and to give the notarization the procedure through the mail way. But our country current law has not legal effect to make a more explicit stipulation in receiving after dunning to this notarization mail delivery the notice. Therefore, the author carries on the corresponding elaboration about the problem whether it should receive after dunning to the notarization mail delivery informs to give rise to the limitation of action interrupt potency based on our country present law and the judicial interpretation, which is in accordance without country judicature practice two quite common academic viewpoints, is suitable in the civil action evidence the highly probability proof standard.