债权人代位权行使效果的反思与重构

Refection and Reconstruction of the Exercise Effect of Creditor’s Subrogation Right

在对债权人代位权行使效果的解释上,“直接受偿规则”和“入库规则”各有支持者。虽然“直接受偿规则”在目前取得了类似通说的地位,但其存在着体系违反和实施障碍两大问题,并不能较好地实现债权人代位权的立法目的。为此,应基于“入库规则”对行使效果进行重构,并区分同种类动产债权、不同种类动产债权、不动产债权而设定规则。在解释上,应对《民法典》第537条进行限缩,认为仅适用于对对于种类动产债权的代位。至于不同种类动产债权及不动产债权的代位,应认为法律对此应设而未设规定,从而构成法律漏洞,需要由法官基于“入库规则”并结合保全及强制执行的规定进行漏洞填补。

In terms of the interpretation of the exercise effect of the creditor's subrogation right,the"directly compensated rules"and the"rule of warehousing"have their proponents.Although the"directly compensated rules"has achieved a status as a general idea,it has two major problems of system violation and implementation obstacles,which cannot better achieve the legislative purpose of creditor’s subrogation right.For this reason,the exercise effect should be reconstructed based on the"rule of warehousing",and the rules should be set separately for the same kind of movable property claims,different kinds of movable property claims and real estate claims.In terms of interpretation,Article 537 of the Civil Code should be limited and considered to be applicable only to the subrogation of the same kind of movable property claims.For the subrogation of the other claims,it should be considered that the law has not provided for this,thus constituting a legal loophole that needs to be filled by judges based on the"rule of warehousing"and combined with the provisions of preservation and enforcement.