买卖型担保与通谋虚伪表示之辩——“毛某华、林某汉执行异议之诉案”评析

Arbitration of the trading-type guarantee and the misrepresentation of conspiracy——Analysis on the implementing dissent case of Mao Laihua and Lin Fuhan

毛某华、林某汉执行异议之诉再审民事判决书的内容,表明最高人民法院认为《民间借贷司法解释》第24条对买卖型担保进行处理的逻辑起点是对通谋虚伪表示的认定。然而,结合相关法律条文、法理和既往判例分析得知,案涉《房屋买卖合同》仅体现为生活"意愿"和"目的",并不构成通谋虚伪表示。通谋虚伪表示与《民间借贷司法解释》第24条试图实现的规范目的存在根本矛盾。错误适用通谋虚伪表示的症结在于司法实践中长期对"以合法形式掩盖非法目的"规则的混乱理解。此外,案涉合同项下的买受人林某汉符合《最高人民法院关于人民法院民事执行中查封、扣押、冻结财产的规定》第17条的规定,可得对抗强制执行。

The contents of the reconsidered civil judgments of the implementing dissent of Mao Laihua and Lin Fuhan indicate that the Supreme People’s Court held that the logical starting point for the treatment of the trading-type guarantees in Article 24 of the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending is the recognition of the misrepresentation of conspiracy.However,in combination with relevant legal provisions,jurisprudence and past jurisprudence analysis,it is known that the“house sale contract”is only embodied in the“willingness”and“purpose”of life,and does not constitute a misrepresentation of conspiracy.There is a fundamental contradiction between the normative purpose of Article 24 of the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending and the misrepresentation of conspiracy.The crux of the misconduct of the misrepresentation of conspiracy is the long-term confusion of the rule of“covering illegal purposes in a legal form”in judicial practice.In addition,Lin Fuhan,the buyer under the contract,complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Supreme People’s Court on the Provisions on the Sequestration,Seizure and Freezing of Property in the Civil Execution of the People’s Court,and can be opposed to enforcement.