论贷款银行在商品住房买卖合同纠纷中的诉讼地位——兼评《商品房买卖合同问题解释》第25条

Mortgage Bank in Commercial Housing Litigation——With a Critique on Article25th of“Interpretation on Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing”

采用按揭贷款为付款方式买卖商品住房,当事人须签订商品住房买卖合同和按揭贷款合同;当商品住房买卖合同发生纠纷,银行作为购房贷款发放人参与诉讼的地位,最高人民法院司法解释将其定位为"有独立请求权第三人"。笔者认为,商品住房买卖合同与按揭贷款合同具有连带关系;因商品住房买卖合同无效或者被撤销、解除后,按揭贷款合同随之终止,银行发放贷款的预期可得利息受到损害、银行从享有优先受偿权的担保物权人沦为普通债权人。但是,以担保物权人参与商品住房买卖合同纠纷诉讼的银行,毕竟不是合同当事人;为维护自身利益,主张商品住房买卖合同有效,这与本诉中的被告出卖人的主张一致,而不是同时针对原、被告的主张;原告撤诉,银行不可能由有独立请求权的第三人转变为典型的原告又与被告对立,只能是丧失"第三人"的诉讼地位。因此,银行的诉讼地位应当是"无独立请求权的第三人"。

In sales of commercial housing via mortgage, purchasers need to sign the agreement for sale and purchase as well as the mortgage agreement; in case of disputes regarding the agreement for sale and purchase, the Interpretation by the People＇s Supreme Court regards the mortgage bank as ＂a third party with independent rights to claim＂. In the opinion of the Author, the mortgage agreement is terminated if the agreement for sale and purchase is avoided or rescinded; in such cases, the mortgage bank will lose its status as a security interest holder with priority of compensation to an ordinary creditor. The Mortgage bank＇s claim to uphold the agreement for sale and purchase is allied to the one of the defendant Vendor; thus if the plaintiff Purchaser withdraws its claim, the mortgage bank cannot become the Plaintiff in the traditional sense in the case to claim against the defendant Vendor; the only option is to lose its status in the litigation. Thus the bank should be regarded as ＂a third party with no independent rights to claim＂.