论文部分内容阅读
我国《合同法》在赋予债权人代位权的同时,对其行使效果的归属问题却没有作明确规定。传统民法理论认为,债权人代位权的行使应当遵循“入库规则”。但基于现实的需要及代位权行使的实际效果的考虑,最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(一)》第20条确认了债权人代位权行使的优先受偿规则。这两种相互冲突的观点到底孰优孰劣,在理论界引起了广泛争议。本文从代位权的立法目的入手,对传统的“入库规则”和后确立的“优先受偿规则”从理论基础、实践意义、公平正义等多个角度进行了比较分析,论证了代位权“优先受偿规则”与“入库规则”相比,其存在更具合理性、可行性和优越性。
While giving the creditor’s right of subrogation, China’s “Contract Law” has not clearly defined the vesting effect of its exercise effect. According to the traditional civil law theory, the exercise of subrogation of creditors should follow the “storage rules”. However, based on the actual needs and the practical effect of the exercise of subrogation, Article 20 of the Supreme People’s Court confirms the priority reimbursement rule for the exercise of subrogation of creditor’s rights (Article 1 of the Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (I) . The two conflicting views in the end which one is better, in theorists have caused widespread controversy. This article starts from the legislative purpose of subrogation and compares and analyzes the traditional “storage rules ” and the “preferential compensation rules ” established from the angles of theory, practice, fairness and justice The subrogation “priority of compensation rules ” compared with “storage rules ”, its existence is more reasonable, feasible and superiority.