民商二元视角下“售后回租”之分析

Research on Sale-And-Lease-Back in the Dualistic Fields of Civil Law and Commercial Law

"售后回租"交易本质上是信贷担保行为,其租金交换租赁物本身的价值,而非物的使用。不能单纯基于当事人所有权的约定而认定"售后回租"中融资租赁公司享有破产取回权,因为民法所有权不完全决定破产财产归属。出于平等对待破产债权人等原因考虑,租赁物应归属于承租人破产财产,融资租赁公司仅享有破产别除权。由于"售后回租"合同具有节税的功能,民法层面应维护当事人的意思自治,只在破产法中进行调整。在承租人破产情形下,如果合同被解除,出租人的破产取回权不具有正当性和合法性。在解释论层面,对合同履行阶段进行分解,双方在租赁物上成立共有关系,限制融资租赁公司取回。在立法论层面,民事规范关于"售后回租"的规定仅涉及其效力,具体的破产效果交由破产法特别调整。

The sale-and-lease-back is essentially loan with security interests,and the rent exchanges not the use of the lease item,but its value.It’s incorrect to confer bankruptcy recall rights on lessors based solely on ownerships,because the ownership in civil code can’t determine the range of the bankruptcy property.In order to treat creditors equally,etc.,the lease item belongs to the debtor’s bankruptcy property and the lessor only has bankruptcy exemption rights.Because of the function of tax saving,the party’s autonomy should still be maintained outside the bankruptcy law.When lessee goes bankrupt and the contract is terminated by the administrator,the bankruptcy exemption right of the lessor is not justified and not legal.From the theory of interpretation,the process of the fulfillment of the contract should be divided,and the relationship of co-ownerships is established,so that bankruptcy recall rights of lessor is restricted.From the theory of legislation,the civil article only regulates sale-and-lease-back’s validity,the bankruptcy problems should be regulated in bankruptcy law.