清偿抵充指定权限制规则之反思

Reflection on the Rules Restricting the Right to Designate Debt Settlement and Offset

《民法典》第561条规定的清偿抵充指定权限制规则之正当性存疑。认为该规则系比较法上通行做法的观点并不准确。保护债权人利益不足以作为证成该规则的理由,债务人的清偿自由及其背后的财产处分自由同样值得保护。在制度设计上,在债务人的财产不足以清偿全部债务时应当尽可能减轻其负担。更为合理的做法是承认债务人在主债务、利息与实现债权的费用中享有指定清偿对象的自由。在解释《民法典》第561条时应当尽可能限缩其适用范围。债务人在清偿时指定清偿对象的,债权人如果未及时表示反对,则视为同意债务人的清偿指定行为。在多笔主债务、利息与实现债权的费用并存时,应当采纳“相对优先说”而非“绝对优先说”,并将主债务、利息与实现债权的费用作为整体以判断债务负担的程度。

The legitimacy of the restrictive rule on the right of imputation under Article 561 of the Civil Code is questionable.The opinion that similar rule is a common practice in comparative law is inaccurate.The protection to the creditor is not suffice to justify this rule and the freedom of imputation as well as the underlying freedom of disposition of property of the debtor are equally worthy of protection.It is necessary to minimise the burden on the debtor when its assets were insufficient to satisfy the entire debt,which makes it more reasonable to recognise the debtor's freedom of imputation among the principal,interest and the cost of realising the claim.In interpreting the Article 561 of the Civil Code,its scope of application should be limited as far as possible.The creditor shall be deemed to have agreed to the debtor's order of imputation if it fails to object in a timely manner.In the case that multiple principals,interests and costs of realising claims coexist,it is desirable to adopt the“relative priority theory”rather than the“absolute priority theory”.Besides,the principal,interest and the cost of realising the claim should be taken as a whole to assess the burden of the debt.