商品房买卖型担保合同效力的认定——以葛桂芝案为例

Ascertaining the Validity Of Commercial Housing Sales Guarantee Contract——Take the Ge Guizhi case as an Example

在房屋购买过程中,双方当事人以产权为借贷提供担保,法律对此种行为的界定,司法实践怎样认定该买卖合同的效力,双方行为并未达成真实的买卖合意,是否构成“通谋虚伪”,在学理上有待商榷。在我国司法实践中,该行为通常的外在法律形式是双方的房屋买卖法律关系,而隐藏的法律形式则是一种担保关系。据《民间借贷司法解释》第24条规定,人民法院应当按照民间借贷法律关系审理。由此可见,该条款对于买卖合同的效力予以否定。法律之所以否认买卖合同的有效性,是因为双方订立的合同与流押条款相类似,以标的物整体性权利(通常是所有权)为担保,不利于保障民事双方的平等地位,并与民法的公平原则、平等原则相悖。

In the process of house purchase,both parties use property rights to provide guarantee for the loan.The law defines this be-havior,how does the judicial practice determine the validity of the sale and purchase contract,and whether the behavior of the two parties has not reached a true purchase and sale agreement,whether it constitutes a“conspiracy Hypocrisy”is open to discussion in academic theory.In my country's judicial practice,the usual external legal form of this behavior is the legal relationship between the two parties'house purchase and sale,while the hidden legal form is a guarantee relationship.According to Article 24 of the“Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending”,the people's court shall conduct trials in accordance with the legal relationship of private lending.It can be seen that the clause negates the validity of the sales contract.The reason why the law denies the validity of the sales con-tract is that the contract concluded by the two parties is similar to the exiled clause.The integral right(usually the ownership)of the subject matter is used as a guarantee,which is not conducive to guaranteeing the equal status of both parties in the civil law.The principle of fairness and equality are contradictory.