论应收账款上竞存权利的优先顺序——以《担保制度解释》第66条第1款的司法适用为中心

On the Priority Order of the Right to Compete in Receivables--Centering on the Judicial Application of Article 66 (1) of the Interpretation of Security System

同一应收账款可跨越将来与现实两种样态,同一性可借助登记系统内已公示的对担保财产的描述内容加以判断,涉及无基础关系将来应收账款时通常尚需审查作为登记附件的融资合同。既有立法实践将应收账款让与登记的适用范围限于“以融资为目的”并不妥当,应提倡让与登记能力的一元化。应收账款让与登记具有对抗所有第三人的效力,《民法典》第768条存在明显漏洞,应当类推适用《民法典》第403条对该漏洞加以填补。应收账款上竞存权利优先顺序体系可构建为:已登记受让人、质权人>破产管理人、扣押债权人>未登记已通知受让人>未登记未通知受让人;数个通知到达债务人顺序不明时,应类推适用《民法典》第768条第4分句(比例清偿规则)处理。

Accounts receivable with identity can span both future and present states.The identity of future accounts receivable with basic relationship and actual accounts receivable should be judged directly by the description of the security property published in the registration system.For the identity between future accounts receivable without underlying relationship and accounts receivable with underlying relationship,the reference content should include the financing contract as an attachment to the registration in addition to the description of the security property published in the registration system.It is not proper for the existing legislative practice to limit the applicable scope of the assignment and registration of accounts receivable to“for the purpose of financing”,so we should take the opportunity of the revision of the Measures for The Registration of Accounts receivable pledge to delete this limitation and realize the unification of the assignment and registration ability.Assignment and registration of accounts receivable has the effect against all third parties.There is an obvious loophole in Article 768 of the Civil Code,which should be filled by analogy with Article 403 of the Civil Code.After the scope of registration and confrontation is expanded,the priority order system of competing right of receivables can be constructed as:registered assignee,pledgee>bankruptcy administrator,distrainee>unregistered and notified assignee>unregistered and unnotified assignee;If several notices reach the debtor in unknown order,they shall be treated by analogy with clause 4 of Article 768 of the Civil Code(rule of proportional liquidation).