论烂尾楼停贷纠纷中的合同联立与强制停贷权——兼论(2019)最高法民再245号判决的遗留问题

The Linked Contracts and the Compulsory Loan Suspension Right in the Loan Suspension Dispute of Uncompleted Buildings——Also on the Aftereffects of Supreme Court Judgment No.245(2019)

最高人民法院(2019)最高法民再245号判决是对烂尾楼停贷纠纷的指导性裁判。然而,该案例中的“法的续造”及遗留问题有待进一步分析。就商品房买卖合同与商品房担保贷款合同的关系而言,二者具有效力关联性,但其正当性基础无法通过法定合同解除权或情事变更原则证成,无法直接参考域外消费信贷法中的“撤回权之延伸”制度,而可类推适用《民法典》第754条来证成。购房者对按揭银行的“强制停贷权”具有正当性,可通过法教义学视角下的“抗辩权之延伸”、利益衡量论下的利益拆分与比例原则以及法经济学视角下的经济效率分析来证成。“返还请求权之延伸”在民法典体系下无适用空间。若商品房买卖合同与商品房担保贷款合同都被解除,购房者可请求银行返还其已付房贷及利息。

The Supreme Court's Judgment No.245(2019)provides a framework for resolving the dispute over the suspension of loans for unfinished buildings.However,the judicial lawmaking and its implications in this case,require further investigation.The sale contract of commercial real estate and the contract for the secured loan of commercial real estate is in effect related.Their validity,however,cannot be proved by the right of rescission or the doctrine of change of circumstances,nor by referring directly to the system of"extension of the right of withdrawal"in overseas consumer credit laws,but it can be demonstrated by analogy with Article 754 of the Civil Code of PRC.The purchaser's compulsory loan suspension right against the mortgage bank is justified by the"extension of the right of defense"from the standpoint of juristic dogmatic,weighing of interests,and economic efficiency analysis.The extension of the claim of restitution"has no place in the civil code system.If both the commercial real estate sale contract and the commercial real estate secured loan contract are canceled,the purchaser can request that the bank return the mortgage and the related interest paid.