债权多重让与的体系解释
方新军债权多重让与的体系解释
Systemic Interpretation of Multiple Assignments of Debt
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：方新军
单位：
中文关键词：债权多重让与;保理合同;担保统一登记;债权让与通知;比例受偿
英文关键词：multiple assignment of debt; factoring contract; unified security registration; notice of assignment; apportionment
中文摘要：
民法典第768条在保理合同中规定了债权多重让与的“登记最优、通知次优、比例分配”的优先清偿顺序。“单轨制”认为该条具有一般规范的品性，应类推或直接适用于普通债权的多重让与。但是这种观点在方法论上无法被证立，《动产和权利担保统一登记办法》也无法为其运行提供完全的制度支撑。第768条自身存在诸多缺陷和硬伤。由于债权数量不可计数，无法像物权一样进行初始登记，同时债权登记采取人的编成的登记体例，登记机关不对登记内容进行实质审查，使得债权登记的公信力不足。通知优先规则一方面增加了债务人的负担，另一方面和债权让与生效时债权即发生移转的规则存在无法化解的矛盾。比例分配原则是错把让与当担保的产物，有悖债权让与法理。当债权让与同时涉及债权扣押、让与人或者受让人破产时，第768条的适用更是捉襟见肘。无论是基于第768条的体系位置，还是基于该条可能引发的理论难题和实践困境，该条的适用范围都应被严格限制在保理合同领域。
英文摘要：
Article 768 of the Chapter on Factoring Contracts of Chinese Civil Code provides for the order of satisfaction in the case of multiple assignments of debt as "registration first, notice second, and apportionment third". Supporters of the "unitary approach" argue that this provision regarding receivables is in essence a general one, so it should be either directly or analogously applied to the assignment of various types of debt other than receivables. However, this proposition cannot be justified from a methodological standpoint. Neither can it be supported by the newly promulgated Measures for the Unified Registration of Security Interests over Movable Properties and Rights from an institutional standpoint. Article 768 itself has many inherent defects and problems. Creditors' rights are too numerous to do initial registration like property rights. Moreover, registration of the creditor's rights focuses on the holder of the right in question, not the subject matter of the right, so the registrar does not carry out substantive checks on application materials, leading to weak public faith in the registration. The rule of notice adds a burden to the debtor and logically contradicts the rule that a debt is transferred when the assignment of the very debt becomes effective. The principle of apportionment violates many theories of the assignment of debt. Article 768 is even more difficult to apply where the assignment of debt in question coincides with the seizure of debt or the insolvency of the assignor or the assignee. Whether based on the systemic position, theoretical problems or practical predicaments, the application scope of Article 768 ought to be confined to the context of factoring only, so as to avoid excessive impact on traditional theories of the assignment of debt.
全文阅读： 点击下载
