论间接代理受托人破产时对委托人的保护

The Protection of Indirect Agency’s Principal on Agent’s Bankruptcy

“因第三人的原因不履行义务”这一要件使得《民法典》第926条与比较法上的间接代理制度大相径庭,无法发挥该制度最重要的功能:在受托人破产时给予委托人必要的救济。现有制度在内部关系仍然起作用时,额外地调整外部关系,给予委托人更多的保护;而应有制度是,在内部关系不起作用时,例外地调整外部关系,给予委托人必要的保护。现行委托人的介入权属于不必要规定的无害条款,但在受托人破产时存在法律漏洞。可以通过教义学上的解释,在满足财产分别管理等证明标准后,让委托人在第三人已经履行时享有取回权,在第三人未履行时享有债权取回权,使得受托人破产时,委托人的权利优先于其他债权人。

The requirement of“non-performance due to a third party”makes Article 926 of the Civil Law varied from the indirect agency rule in comparative view and fails to perform the most important function of the rule:granting the principal necessary remedies when the agent goes bankrupt.When the internal relationship still works,the rule additionally adjusts the external relationship to give the principal more protection;while the rule should adjust the external relationship exceptionally when the internal relationship does not work,giving the principal the necessary protection.The current principal’s right to intervene is an unnecessary provision,but there are legal loopholes for the bankrupt agent.Through doctrinal interpretation,after satisfying the certification standards for separate property management,etc.The principal can be given the right to recover when the third party has performed,and the right to claim before the third party performs.At this time,the rights of the principal take preference over other creditors.