以物抵债契约研究

发布时间：2018-04-11 15:19

本文选题：以物抵债 + 代物清偿　；参考：《南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学)》2014年06期

【摘要】：以物抵债在司法实务中常见,我国民法上没有此概念及相应的制度体系,故司法判决多有疑虑,现今竟成了疑难案例。有的法院几乎将其视为虚假诉讼之同义词,有的法院则以"流质契约"直接否定其效力。以物抵债系当事人在契约中约定的条款,故应以无名合同原理研究之,区分不同情形进行归类,尽量与现有民法概念和制度进行匹配。以物抵债契约不属于法律漏洞,法院应通过准用、类推适用等方法解释适用,形成比较有法理性的裁判规则。以物抵债契约的效力判断,应从合同自由及意思自治原则出发,正确进行概念界定和辨析,在正确进行意思表示解释及物尽其用原则下,应肯定其意义和效力,而不是直接适用流质契约及让与担保之规则。以物抵债契约的实践合同说只是一种解释的角度,而非实践合同的效力本质。以物抵债契约虽容易被虚假诉讼利用,但两者本身并无关联。
[Abstract]:Retribution for debt is common in judicial practice. There is no such concept and corresponding system in civil law of our country, so judicial decision has many doubts, and now it has become a difficult case.Some courts almost regard it as synonym of false litigation, others directly deny its validity by "fluid contract".Redeemable debt is the clause agreed by the parties in the contract, so it should be studied according to the principle of nameless contract, classified according to different situations, and matched with the existing concept and system of civil law as far as possible.The contract of recompense in rem is not a legal loophole, the court should interpret the application by means of right, analogy and so on, and form more reasonable rules of judgment.In judging the validity of the contract of recompense in recompense, we should proceed from the principles of freedom of contract and autonomy of will, define and discriminate correctly the concept, and affirm its significance and effect under the principle of correct interpretation of intention and the principle of making full use of things.Instead of directly applying the rules of fluid contract and assignment guarantee.The theory of practical contract in recompense is only an explanation, not the essence of the validity of the contract.The debt-for-rem contract is easy to be used in false litigation, but the two are not related to each other.
【作者单位】：东南大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】