买卖型担保效力认定的法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-08 11:17

本文选题：买卖型担保 + 效力认定　；参考：《山西大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着市场对融资需求的增长,民间借贷中存在的以商品房买卖合同担保借款协议的案件日益增多,我国对于该类买卖型担保却缺乏相应的法律规范。《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》(以下简称《民间借贷司法解释》)第24条将买卖合同担保借款协议定性为借贷法律关系,但是该条款的模糊性仍旧无法解决审判中的争议问题,因此对买卖型担保效力认定的法律问题引起理论界和实务界的广泛关注。笔者以最高人民法院颇具争议的两个买卖型担保的案例为出发点,运用案例分析、比较研究等方法,分析买卖型担保效力认定在理论和司法实践中的分歧以及产生该分歧的原因,同时通过对最高人民法院《民间借贷司法解释》第24条的规定的解读,借鉴域外地区对买卖型担保效力认定的做法,理顺我国当前审理买卖型担保案件效力认定中的基本思路,并提出我国让与担保制度构建和完善的建议。全文共分为三个部分。第一部分阐述最高人民法院经再审判决的两个买卖型担保案例。两个案例均是通过签订商品房买卖合同的形式来担保借款协议,争议焦点都是双方当事人法律关系之认定,即借贷关系还是买卖关系以及买卖合同担保效力的问题。尽管最高人民法院在案件审理中,通过借款协议和形成证据链条证明了借贷关系的存在,并最终将双方当事人的法律关系认定为借贷关系,但对担保借款协议的买卖合同效力的认定上却截然相反。第二部分分析买卖型担保案件中的法律争议问题及其产生的原因。对于买卖型担保是否违反流押禁止规定、是否违反物权法定原则、是否存在通谋虚伪表示、是否属于脱法行为、是物权担保还是债权担保等,理论和实践中都存在很大分歧。究其原因,首先是理论界对于买卖型担保的观点不同:代物清偿预约说主张买卖型担保属于债权担保,因存在通谋虚伪意思表示及流押禁止条款而无效;后让与担保说主张买卖型担保属于物权担保,但登记不发生所有权移转效力;让与担保说主张买卖型担保符合让与担保要件,登记产生所有权转移效果,是否有效可参照让与担保相关制度认定。立法方面,《民间借贷司法解释》24条规定模糊,不足以应对错杂的买卖型担保效力认定问题。第三部分对于买卖型担保案件效力认定中的争议问题提出解决方案。首先,对买卖型担保性质应采取让与担保说,相应地提出了通过建立和完善让与担保制度来解决争议问题。其次,借鉴域外地区担保制度的相关规定。流押条款的效力方面,应顺应世界通常的宽容态度,认定让与担保的效力;物权法定主义僵硬,造成“脱法行为”的问题,采取类似台湾的办法,容许在一定前提下由习惯创设;在让与担保的设定方面,可借鉴澳门采取“书面成立+登记对抗”模式。最后,我国应构建让与担保制度,并以此解决买卖型担保争议问题。具体包括:在《民法典》中确定让与担保制度;完善让与担保标的物备案登记制度;运用公序良俗原则解决流押条款效力问题;发布案例指导为让与担保实践提供清晰法律规则。
[Abstract]:With the increase in the demand for financing in the market and the increasing number of cases guaranteed by the commercial housing contract in private lending, our country lacks the corresponding legal norms for this type of business type guarantee. < the Supreme People's court's provisions on the application of laws for private lending cases (hereinafter referred to as "private lending") The twenty-fourth article determines the loan agreement of the sale contract guarantee as the legal relationship of the loan, but the ambiguity of the clause still cannot solve the dispute in the trial. Therefore, the legal problem of determining the effectiveness of the purchase and sale type has aroused widespread concern in the theoretical and practical circles. The author takes the two controversial purchases by the Supreme People's court. The case of selling type guarantee is the starting point. Using the case analysis, comparative study and other methods, it analyzes the differences between the theory and the judicial practice of the confirmation of the validity of the purchase and sale type and the reasons for the difference. At the same time, through the interpretation of the twenty-fourth provisions of the Supreme People's court "the judicial interpretation of private lending" and the reference of the domain area to the sale type guarantee The practice of effectiveness identification, rationalize the basic thinking in the validity of our country's current trial of sale type guarantee case, and put forward the proposal of construction and perfection of our country's guarantee system. The full text is divided into three parts. The first part expounds the two cases of sale guarantee of the Supreme People's court by retrial. The two cases are all through signing business. To guarantee the loan agreement in the form of a contract of purchase and sale, the focus of the dispute is the identification of the legal relationship between the parties, that is, the relationship between the borrowing and selling, and the validity of the guarantee for the sale of the contract. Although the Supreme People's court has proved the existence of the loan relationship through the loan agreement and the chain of evidence in the case, the Supreme People's court has proved the existence of the loan relationship and finally the final result. The legal relationship between the two parties is identified as a loan relationship, but the validity of the contract for the purchase and sale of the secured loan agreement is completely opposite. The second part analyzes the legal disputes in the case of the sale type guarantee and the reasons for it. Whether it violates the legal principle of the property right or not, whether it violates the prohibition of the mortgage and whether it violates the legal principle of real right, Whether there is a conspiracy of hypocrisy, whether it belongs to the act of taking off the law, is a real right guarantee or a creditor's right guarantee, and so on. There are great differences in both theory and practice. The reason is that the first is the difference between the theory and the business type guarantee. The prohibition clause is invalid; the post transfer guarantee claims that the sale type guarantee belongs to the real right guarantee, but the registration does not have the effect of ownership transfer; the transfer guarantee claims that the transaction type guarantee conforms to the requisites of the transfer guarantee, the registration produces the effect of transfer of ownership, whether it can be effectively referenced to the system of transfer guarantee. The law explains that the >24 article is vague and is not enough to deal with the problem of determining the effectiveness of the business type guarantee. The third part puts forward the solution to the dispute problem in the validity of the sale type guarantee case. First, we should adopt the transfer guarantee for the nature of the guarantee of the sale type, and accordingly put forward to solve the dispute through the establishment and perfection of the system of transfer guarantee. Secondly, with reference to the relevant provisions of the security system in the field area, the validity of the clause should conform to the general tolerance of the world and determine the effectiveness of the transfer guarantee; the legal doctrine of real right is rigid and causes the problem of "act of removing the law", which is similar to Taiwan, allowing it to be created by habit under a certain premise; in transfer guarantee In the aspect of setting, we can draw on the model of "written establishment + registration confrontation" in Macao. Finally, our country should construct the system of transfer guarantee and solve the problem of transaction type guarantee dispute. Issue case guidance provides clear legal rules for transfer guarantee practice.

【学位授予单位】：山西大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】