类型区分视角下将来债权担保的私法规制

The Regulation of Private Law of Future Claims Pledge from the Perspective of Type Distinction

将来债权是指订立担保合同时尚未存在,但将来有可能发生的债权。根据底层资产的有无,将来债权可以分为孳息型将来债权与经营型将来债权。孳息型将来债权担保与经营型将来债权担保在底层资产、信用水平、过度担保等方面均存在显著区别,所以两者应适用不同的调整规则。孳息型将来债权担保不存在信用降维与过度担保的问题,其面临的问题有二,一是底层资产受侵害时担保权人的利益保护问题,二是孳息型将来债权担保与其他担保物权竞存时的顺位问题。前者需要构建特殊的侵权法规则,而后者只需适用现行法上的顺位规则即可。与之相反,经营型将来债权担保既会因信用降维而损害担保权人,也会因过度担保而损害担保人的其他债权人。对于过度担保,可以通过合同无效制度来解决。而对于信用降维,则应区分正常经营过程与破产清算程序来分析。在前者,可以采取合同安排或借鉴接管人制度;在后者,可以适用合同解除制度。

Future claims are claims that do not exist at the time of the formation of the security contract but may arise in the future.Depending on whether the underlying asset exists,future claims can be divided into asset-based future claims and operating-based future claims.Asset-based future claims pledge and operating-based future claims pledge differ significantly in underlying assets,credit level,excessive guarantee,etc.,so they should apply different rules.There are no problems of credit degradation and excessive guarantee in asset-based future claims pledge,and the main problems in it are the protection of secured creditors when the underlying assets are infringed,as well as the priority when the asset-based future claims pledge is in the competition with other security interests.In order to solve the former,we needs to constitute special tort law rules,while the latter can be solved by applying the Civil Code.In contrast,operating-based future claims pledge would harm both secured creditors for credit degradation,and the other creditors of the secured debtor for excessive guarantee.Excessive guarantee can be resolved by confirming the contract invalid.While for credit degradation,if secured debtor is in ordinary course of business,it can be resolved by contractual arrangements or administrative receiver system,and if secured debtor is in bankruptcy,it can be resolved by contract termination rules.