支付账户型第三方支付的非授权支付责任——以德国支付服务相关法律为参照

Unauthorized Payment Responsibility for Account-Based Third-Party Payment:Taking German Payment Service Related Laws as Reference

为积极面对由于互联网技术与电子支付发展带来的市场结构与交易方式的变化,德国支付服务法改革确立了以优待用户为导向的非授权支付责任分担规则。该经验立足于《德国民法典》的规范体系,也平衡了支付服务提供者与用户间的利益。此做法与中国新近施行的《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)中通过推进法定数字货币,促进数字经济发展的导向吻合,值得中国借鉴。针对支付账户型第三方支付,支付机构与付款人间存在电子货币发行关系,以及基于支付委托合同的资金关系、基于支付委托合同的托收关系。在非授权支付中,支付账户型支付机构应当按照严格责任向用户先行偿还资金,再根据用户是否存在过错,“反向”主张违反附随义务的损害赔偿。支付账户型支付机构应获得法定追偿,向其他支付机构及加害人追偿。《非银行支付机构网络支付业务管理办法》第7条主张支付机构与付款人间成立电子货币的消费保管合同,该规定与《民法典》、民法原理相悖。为了实现法律体系的协调,前述条文应删除“其实质为客户委托支付机构保管的、所有权归属于客户的预付价值”。

In order to actively face the changes in market structure and transaction methods brought about by the development of Internet technology and electronic payment,Germany′s payment service law reform has established rules for sharing responsibility for unauthorized payments based on preferential treatment of users.This experience is based on the normative system of the"German Civil Code"and also balances the interests of payment service providers and users.This approach is consistent with China′s newly implemented"Civil Code"through the promotion of legal digital currency to promote the guidance of the digital economy,and it is worth learning from China.For payment account-based third-party payment,there is an electronic currency issuance relationship between the payment institution and the payer,as well as the financial relationship based on the payment commission contract and the collection relationship based on the payment commission contract.In the case of unauthorized payment,the payment account-type payment institution shall first repay the user′s funds in accordance with strict liability,and then based on whether the user is at fault,"reversely"claim damages for breach of collateral obligations.Payment account-type payment institutions shall obtain statutory recourse and seek reimbursement from other payment institutions and the perpetrator.Article 7 of the"Administrative Measures for Online Payment Services of Non-bank Payment Institutions"advocates the establishment of electronic currency consumer custody contracts between payment institutions and payers.This provision is contrary to the Civil Code and the principles of civil law.In order to achieve the coordination of the legal system,the aforementioned provisions should delete the phrase"the value of prepayments entrusted by the customer to the custody of the payment institution and the ownership of which is vested in the customer".