论以物抵债的概念——以法院个案判决为出发点

On the Concept of Debt in Remfrom the Court’s Judgment

我国民法理论和实务界对以物抵债概念的定性不一导致民事审判不一,究其原因系对其属于“契约”或“处分行为”“诺成性”或“实践性”的判定不一。而对以物抵债概念定性的判定错误,源于对国外立法例以及要物合同的理解错误。问题的解决在于通过对目前已有法律的解释,在坚持以物抵债属于“诺成性契约”的基础上,尊重当事人的合意,实现以物抵债概念与其他制度的结合,体现其包容性。

The theory and practice of civil law in China differ in the nature of the concept of debt in rem,resulting in different civil trials.The reason lies in the different judgments on whether it belongs to“contract”or“disposition”,“commitment”or“practice”.The wrong judgment on the concept of debt in rem originates from the wrong understanding of foreign legislation and the contract in rem.The solution to the problem lies in the interpretation of the existing laws,on the basis of insisting that the debt in rem belongs to the“consensual contract”,respecting the consent of the parties,realizing the combination of the concept of debt in rem with other systems,and reflecting its inclusiveness.