担保型买卖合同的性质、效力与理解——以“打架”的最高人民法院公报案例为视角

The Nature,Effectiveness and Understanding of the Guarantee-type Sale Contract——From the Perspective of conflicting Supreme Court Cases

担保型买卖合同近年来引发了一系列的学理讨论,在这个问题的司法实践中更是出现了最高人民法院自相矛盾的情况。针对担保型买卖合同究竟是买卖还是担保,如果是担保又是哪种担保的争论也是莫衷一是。笔者认为,担保型买卖合同本质上是一种非典型担保,该担保具有相应的合同效力,但不具有物权效力,倘若买卖合同业已履行,债务人或担保人就不能主张不动产转让不发生物权效力,以图为最高人民法院《关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》的适用铺平道路,规范此类案件的审理,更好地平衡借贷双方之间的权利与义务关系。

In recent years,the collateralized trading contract has given rise to heated debate.In judicial practice,conflicting opinions by Supreme People’s Court reveal nonuniformity on this issue.The nature of such contract is in dispute.This article considers that the secured sale contract is essentially a kind of atypical guarantee,which has the contractual effect without rights in rem.If the contract of sale has been performed,the debtor or the guarantor cannot request the transfer of title.In addition,the author intended to pave way for the application of SPC’s interpretation on civil loan agreement,and to standardize the trial of such cases and to strike right balance between disputing parties.