债权让与限制特约效力释论

An Interpretation of the Effectiveness of Contractual Prohibition of Assignment

《民法典》第545条就债权让与限制特约的效力问题作出了规定,但在非金钱债权场合,该特约究竟应当具备何种效力仍未臻明确。依据债权性质的不同面向,债权让与限制特约具备两种截然不同的属性:一是作为受限债权的固有内容构成受限债权之可让与性的"内部控制基因";二是作为一种独立于受限债权的契约构成预防债权人转让受限债权的"外部限制因素"。《民法典》第545条第1款第二项与第2款宜被解释为"构成要件--法律效果"的关系,相对于债权让与限制特约所欲限制之债权,该特约具有独立性。债权让与限制特约所具有的对抗恶意第三人的效力应包含两项内容:一是将受限债权的受领权限固定于让与人,二是固定债务的履行对象。为防止债务人获得额外的不当利益,债务人同意债权人转让受限债权之意思表示宜被解释为债务人对让与人不得转让债权之合同义务的免除。

Article 545 of the Civil Code provides the rule of contractual prohibition of assignment’ s effectiveness,but in the case where creditor’ s contractual right is non-pecuniary,it is not clear what content contractual prohibition of assignment ’s effectiveness may have. According to the different aspects ’ attributes of creditor ’ s contractual right,contractual prohibition of assignment has two completely different nature: one is the "internal control gene"controls the assignability of creditor ’ s contractual right,and the other is the "external limiting factor"prevents creditor from assigning the contractual right. The relationship between Article 545( 1)( 2)and( 2) of the Civil Code should be interpreted as relationship between constitutive elements and legal effectiveness. Accordingly,contractual prohibition of assignment is independent of creditor ’ s contractual right whose assignability is externally restrained. The effectiveness of contractual prohibition of assignment against the malicious third party have two dimensions: The first is to fix acceptance authority to the assignor and the second is to fix the debt performing object. In order to prevent the obligor obtaining additional benefits which is legally unjust,the obligor’ s consent to the creditor’ s conveyance of a contractual right whose assignability is restrained by contractual prohibition of assignment should be interpreted as the exemption of the assignor’ s contractual obligation not to assign the contractual right.