代位权债权收取功能的解释论重构———以《民法典》合同编及司法解释为中心

Interpretive Theory Reconstruction of the Collection Function of Subrogation Claims:Centering on the Contract Part of the Civil Code and Judicial Interpretation

代位权最初是关于执行的制度,债权人由此收取债权,是其应有之义。尽管其后因与执行法相冲突而被重构,但仍以债权收取功能为重心,与保全制度存在区别。代位权的优先受偿源于查封效果,与收取模式无关。重构后,代位权的本旨在于消除义务人怠于状态的不利影响,无论债权收取抑或保全,均是统合于该本旨下的具体用法。允许债权人代位受领给付的目的同样在此,因而原则上无查封效果,且债权人不得直接受偿,而是负担返还义务,且只能抵销受偿。实践中,应构建嫁接执行的诉讼结构,允许债权人在提起代位权诉讼的同时起诉债务人,以取得查封效果,并作为查封债权人优先受偿,此时无论是否抵销适状,均可就标的直接或变价受偿。结合《民法典》合同编及司法解释的相关规定,可为前述结论构建合适的教义学路径,在遵循代位权本旨并兼容执行法规范的同时,更好保障债权人利益。

Subrogation began as an enforcement system whereby creditors could collect their claims,and although it has been reconfigured because of the conflict with the law of enforcement,it is still centered on the function of collecting claims,being distinct from the system of preservation.The priority of subrogation is derived from the effect of seizure and has nothing to do with the mode of collection.After the reconstruction,subrogation is intended to eliminate the adverse effects of an obligor's laxity,and both the collection of claims and preservation are specific uses of this purpose.Allowing the creditor to subrogate to the payment has the same purpose,therefore in principle there is no seizure effect,and the creditor may not be paid directly,but bear the obligation to return,and can only be offset by the payment.In practice,should construct the litigation structure grafting the implementation,allow the creditor in the subrogation lawsuit to sue the debtor at the same time to obtain the effect of the seizure,and as the seizure creditor enjoying priority in compensation.Combined with the Civil Code and judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code,the appropriate doctrinal path can be constructed for the foregoing conclusion to better protect the interests of creditors.