论违反让与禁止的法律后果——兼论《房地产管理法》第38条与《担保法》第37条的规范性质

The Legal Results of Violating Assignment Prohibition

公法上的让与禁止属《合同法》第52条第5项规定的"法律、行政法规的强制性规定",因而须在区分管理性强制性规定和效力性强制性规定的基础上判断违反让与禁止的法律后果。私法上的让与禁止旨在保护特定主体的利益而限制权利人的处分权,故属相对的让与禁止而非绝对的让与禁止。违反相对的让与禁止与违反国家机关发布的让与禁令一样,其后果都是行为相对于所保护的特定主体无效,但受让人可获善意取得制度的保护。违反约定的让与禁止应区分物权和债权而异其效力。《房地产管理法》第38条和《担保法》第37条既不属"法律、行政法规的强制性规定",也不能理解为关于让与禁止或处分禁止的规定,它们在性质上都属警示性规范,因而仅仅是行为规范,不能作为裁判的依据。

Assignment prohibition in public law shall be recognized as the mandatory provision of law or administrative regulation,and the validity of contract which violates an assignment prohibition depends on whether the mandatory provision affects the validity of contract or not. Purpose of assignment prohibition in private law is to protect the interest of specific person,therefore it is the relative assignment prohibition,not the absolute assignment prohibition. The contract is invalid as to the specific person when the contract violates a relative assignment prohibition or a ban from the authorities,but the assignee can get the property according to the system of the acquisition in good faith. The validity of the contract violated the agreement of assignment prohibition differs between assignment of property right and assignment of obligation right. Not only Article 38 of Law of Urban Real Estate Administration and Article 37 of Guaranty Law are not the mandatory provisions,but also they are not the assignment prohibition,both of which aim to warm the assignor. Therefore they are guidelines for traders,not the rule for judges.