以房抵债的理论争点与效力探讨

A Discussion on the Theory and Effectiveness of Paying-a-debt-in-kind

以房抵债在我国自古有之,如今重回人们视野有其特定原因。在纠纷发生时,法院将其作为疑难案件处理,并在实践中形成不同裁判路径。归纳而言,实务界与理论界相关争议主要围绕以房抵债是否属于流押条款、代物清偿以及诺成合同展开,并形成截然不同观点。"并存而又联系"的房屋买卖合同与借款合同,无论从主观主义还是客观主义的标准来判定,均符合构成合同联立的要件。在合同联立理论下对愈发特殊与复杂的以房抵债进行分析,可以为以房抵债效力之认定探寻新的视角。

Paying-a-debt-in-kind was widespread in ancient China and now the practice reappears. When a dispute arose, the court dealt with it as a difficult case and formed different paths of judgment in practice. Relevant disputes between the practitioner and theorists focus on whether paying-a-debt-in-kind belongs to the terms of the current mortgage, the settlement of the contract and the expansion of the contract. Completely different views can be found. Judging by subjective or objective criteria, “coexisting and connected” housing sales contract and loan contracts are consistent with the requirements of contract simultaneous. The theory of contract simultaneous offers a new perspective on the validity of the mortgage by conducting analysis on more dinstinctive and complex paying-a-debt-in-kind.