清偿抵充探微 法释〔2009〕5号第20条和第21条评析

The Detailed Inquires into Imputation of Payment A Commentary on the Article 20 and Article 21 in No. 5〔2009〕of the Supreme People's Court

大陆法系民法中的清偿抵充制度渊源于罗马法,但在债务人指定抵充、债权人指定抵充和法定抵充的法律构造方面,各国民法典的规定存在差异。我国法释〔2009〕5号第20条没有规定债务人的指定抵充,属于一项法政策上的失误,应通过法律续造加以克服。关于抵销的抵充、"均到期"债务的抵充、"担保数额最少"债务的抵充以及诉讼时效期间已届满的债务的抵充等问题,该条规定并不明确,应采用法解释论方法予以阐明。围绕超限利息、逾期利息、违约金等项目的抵充,以及数项主债务均有费用和利息时的抵充,我国的审判实务存在争议,应根据法释〔2009〕5号第21条规定的文义并区分不同债务的性质加以明确。

The imputation of payment in the civil law system derives from Roman law, but there are some discrepancies on the institutional structure in modern civil codes. Though the article 20 in No. 5 [2009] of the Supreme People＇s Court stipulates the imputation of contractual obligation, the agreement of imputation, the right to impute and the rank of statutory imputation still need more specific explanations. In trial practice the article 21 in No. 5[2009]of the Supreme People＇s Court has been treated differently a- round the imputation of overdue interest, overrun interest and liquidated damages, as well as the way of imputation when costs and interests of several main debts coexist, which could be solved through the in- terpretation of such articles based on its nature of different obligation.