让与担保合同效力探析——兼议《借贷合同若干规定》第24条

On the Validity of Transferring Guarantee and Article 24 of Regulations for Folk Debit and Credit

让与担保因其应用的广泛性及合同效力的不确定性,在理论和实务界引起论争。细究其原因,系对此类合同性质认识不一。有学者主张其为以物抵债协议,而本文认为其应属让与担保合同。此类合同效力饱受诟病的因由,主要包括以下四点:属于以合法形式掩饰非法目的,违反法律法规强制性规定,存在流质条款,违背物权法定。《民间借贷规定》第24条以民间借贷法律关系为基础,将让与担保视为一种债之担保,进而对权利人课以清算义务,为实务中认定让与担保合同效力提供了新的进路。但本文认为,让与担保实为物之担保,对其规范亦不应止步于司法解释,宜借助民法典修改之机,将该制度纳入法典加以规范。如此,方能使该制度的构建符合社会发展趋势,有益于经济之融通。

Recently,transferring guarantee has aroused debate in both theory and practice due to its broad application and the uncertainty of its validity.The reason lies in the divergence regarding the nature of such contracts.Some scholars think it is an agreement for paying debts in kind in essence while this paper considers it to be Transferring Guarantee.The reasons why the validity of such contracts is challenged are as follows:the contract intends to conceal an illegal purpose under the guise of a legitimate transaction;the contract violates a mandatory provision of laws or administrative regulations;it belongs to fluidity contracts;it violates the principle of Legal Prescription of Real Right.Article 24 of Regulations for Folk Debit and Credit considers transferring guarantee as one kind of security of obligation based on legal relationship of folk debit and credit and inflict liquidation obligations on right holders,which provides a new way to determine the validity of transferring guarantee contracts.However,this paper believes that transferring guarantee is actually aguarantee of real right which shall be provided in the Civil Code as the compiling of the Civil Code instead of only providing in judicial interpretation.Thus,the provisions of such system can conform to the trend of social development and bring benefits to the economy.